Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[grunt]

https://twitter.com/tonymckelvie/status/207814881146191875Thanks

[JeMeSouviens]

What sanctions would that be? There are none currently allowed for?

From SPL press release:



It was agreed that, in future, any decision on the transfer of a share to a newco from any club will be considered by all member clubs, rather than the SPL Board, with flexibility to impose sanctions appropriate to each individual circumstance. The resolutions proposing fixed penalties on a newco were therefore withdrawn as being obsolete.


http://www.scotprem.com/content/default.asp?page=s2&newsid=11407

[JeMeSouviens]

No, it didn't make it any more automatic.

You must concede that an 8-4 vote will be harder for the New Huns to get than a simple majority of the SPL board?

[Newry Hibs]

You must concede that an 8-4 vote will be harder for the New Huns to get than a simple majority of the SPL board?

So that's 5 no votes needed ....

Celtc and Sheep - because their fans would demand it even if they wanted RFC in the league
Hibs - Petrie's integrity speech (+ fans ...)
I would hope Motherwell and Dundee U would see it as a chance to do better in the league.

Others ?

[Andy74]

From SPL press release:



http://www.scotprem.com/content/default.asp?page=s2&newsid=11407

Thanks.

[PatHead]

Know its 8-4 required but why should oldco get a vote in this at all? Surely they should step aside.

[MyJo]

What Doncaster wanted was for the green light to be given to allowing newco's to rejoin the spl in place of the club that is liquidated with a fixed set of penalties, in this case a 10 point deduction and financial restrictions for two years. This would mean that it was pre-approved for the Huns to get back into the spl straight away without a vote. By rejecting those two proposals the rest of the spl have knocked that on the head and it means that any attempt to get a newco into the spl will be dealt with case by case and it's approval and any sanctions imposed with re-entry will be decided by a majority vote of the spl member clubs and not the spl board.

As it stands if rangers are liquidated they need the majority of the clubs in the spl to agree to allow them back in, not the sfa, not the spl board, and certainly not Doncaster, and if they don't get the majority vote then it's applying to the sfl and division 3.

[johnbc70]

What Doncaster wanted was for the green light to be given to allowing newco's to rejoin the spl in place of the club that is liquidated with a fixed set of penalties, in this case a 10 point deduction and financial restrictions for two years. This would mean that it was pre-approved for the Huns to get back into the spl straight away without a vote. By rejecting those two proposals the rest of the spl have knocked that on the head and it means that any attempt to get a newco into the spl will be dealt with case by case and it's approval and any sanctions imposed with re-entry will be decided by a majority vote of the spl member clubs and not the spl board.

As it stands if rangers are liquidated they need the majority of the clubs in the spl to agree to allow them back in, not the sfa, not the spl board, and certainly not Doncaster, and if they don't get the majority vote then it's applying to the sfl and division 3.
Good summary, also how I interpret the events today. Could scupper Greene's masterplan.

[Twa Cairpets]

An oldie but goodie

Die die die die ya Huns
Die die die die ya Huns
Die die die die, die die die die ya Huns
Die die die die ya Huns
Die die die die ya Huns
Die die die die, die die die die ya Huns.

Repeat.

[CropleyWasGod]

Good summary, also how I interpret the events today. Could scupper Greene's masterplan.

Greene's offer is conditional on an SPL place. That much is explicit in the CVA document, even if little else is.

If there is a delay or uncertainty in that SPL place being granted, then it is little wonder that there is now the reported delay in the sale process.

[jgl07]

Greene's offer is conditional on an SPL place. That much is explicit in the CVA document, even if little else is.

If there is a delay or uncertainty in that SPL place being granted, then it is little wonder that there is now the reported delay in the sale process.

It all depends on the decision on the CVA.

Is there any indication as to when this will happen?

[Barney McGrew]

It all depends on the decision on the CVA.

Is there any indication as to when this will happen?

The creditors will vote to accept/reject the CVA on 14th June.

[CropleyWasGod]

It all depends on the decision on the CVA.

Is there any indication as to when this will happen?

It may not even get to that. This is one of the conditions of Green's offer:-


4.22.6 all consents or other requirements of the SPL and SFA having been obtained or complied with so that Rangers Football Club can continue to participate in such domestic leagues and competitions as it currently participates in.

[jgl07]

The creditors will vote to accept/reject the CVA on 14th June.

Who will pay the wages in the meantime?

That will be half a months' wages at full whack.

The creditors' pot will be negative at this rate!

[joe breezy]

Sorry if already posted


Besiktas suspended from European competition for one year by Uefa
Uefa have suspended Besiktas from all European competition for one year, and fined them €200,000, due to financial problems at the Istanbul club, according to Turkish media.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/european/9300032/Besiktas-suspended-from-European-competition-for-one-year-by-Uefa.html#

The move comes after Uefa scrutinised Besiktas' accounts in the second and third quarters of 2011 and ruled that they breached articles of the ruling body's financial fair play regulations.
Shares in Besiktas tumbled more than 9 per cent following the news.
Besiktas chairman, Fikret Orman, and the club's lawyers attended a meeting with Uefa's disciplinary committee for a second time on Wednesday after the club was earlier warned about its financial status and high debt.
Orman said Besiktas would appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) regarding the ban, but added he was not very optimistic about a ruling in favour of the 13-time Turkish champions.
"We will defend the club's rights until the end, and will appeal to CAS as the first step," Levent Erdogan, a lawyer and club board member told Turkey's Dogan news agency.
"I think it's a dramatic decision, and it will hit us pretty badly, but there's nothing we can do."

[green glory]

Looking forward to news coming from this afternoon's SPL meeting regarding the dual contracts. Exciting!

[grunt]

Graham Fraser‏@STVGrahamFor those interested in SPL board meeting into alleged use of dual contracts at Rangers - no announcement expected today. Possibly tomorrow.

[jgl07]

Follow, followed by a 28 day cooling off period which is how we get the 12th July date.

This gets more farcical by the hour.

So everything has to wait for six weeks before HMRC bomb out the CVA and it is too late to expel them.

meanwhile the debt will be mounting and D&P will continue to bleed the CVA pot dry with their fees.

FIFA and UEFA will have to act soon.

[Stevie Reid]

Looking forward to news coming from this afternoon's SPL meeting regarding the dual contracts. Exciting!

Alasdair Lamont ‏@BBCAlLamont (http://twitter.com/#!/BBCAlLamont)
No SPL update on dual contracts investigation/allegations today after all

[CropleyWasGod]

This gets more farcical by the hour.

So everything has to wait for six weeks before HMRC bomb out the CVA and it is too late to expel them.

meanwhile the debt will be mounting and D&P will continue to bleed the CVA pot dry with their fees.

FIFA and UEFA will have to act soon.

The SFA can expel them at any time. In that event, the CVA process falls.

[Mon Dieu4]

When is the SFA response and the FIFA thing likely to happen, is it feasible that green could buy them then the SFA/FIFA finish them off after that? Kinda like the idea of them thinking its sorted then having the rug pulled out

[Jim44]

Sorry if already posted


Besiktas suspended from European competition for one year by Uefa
Uefa have suspended Besiktas from all European competition for one year, and fined them €200,000, due to financial problems at the Istanbul club, according to Turkish media.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/european/9300032/Besiktas-suspended-from-European-competition-for-one-year-by-Uefa.html#

The move comes after Uefa scrutinised Besiktas' accounts in the second and third quarters of 2011 and ruled that they breached articles of the ruling body's financial fair play regulations.
Shares in Besiktas tumbled more than 9 per cent following the news.
Besiktas chairman, Fikret Orman, and the club's lawyers attended a meeting with Uefa's disciplinary committee for a second time on Wednesday after the club was earlier warned about its financial status and high debt.
Orman said Besiktas would appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) regarding the ban, but added he was not very optimistic about a ruling in favour of the 13-time Turkish champions.
"We will defend the club's rights until the end, and will appeal to CAS as the first step," Levent Erdogan, a lawyer and club board member told Turkey's Dogan news agency.
"I think it's a dramatic decision, and it will hit us pretty badly, but there's nothing we can do."

I take it this literally means CL and EL competitions and not domestic Turkish league and cup competitions, which is where Rangers are at presently.

[grunt]

Here's an odd story - which I don't quite think is correct. I've emailed the author asking where she gets her figures from - will post if and when I hear back...

http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/news/2180847/administrators-run-gbp179m-rangers?WT.rss_f=&WT.rss_a=Administrators+to+run+up+£17.9m+bill+at+R angers&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
This journalist writing for "Accountancy Age" posted a headline saying that D&P were going to get paid £17.9m as administrators. I wrote to ask her where she got the figures from, but I've had no reply. If true, this would have been a major news story. But looking at the CVA Proposal from D&P, I think I can see her mistake. Schedule 4 to the Proposal sets out D&P's estimated outturn for RFCIA under three possible (different) scenarios - CVA, NewCo and Liquidation. Ms Accountancy Age journalist has added the three numbers for D&P's fees under each of the outcomes together! Oops.

[CropleyWasGod]

When is the SFA response and the FIFA thing likely to happen, is it feasible that green could buy them then the SFA/FIFA finish them off after that? Kinda like the idea of them thinking its sorted then having the rug pulled out

I reckon Green won't complete the sale until he is certain that the SPL and SFA places are assured.

[Stevie Reid]

When is the SFA response and the FIFA thing likely to happen, is it feasible that green could buy them then the SFA/FIFA finish them off after that? Kinda like the idea of them thinking its sorted then having the rug pulled out

Alasdair Lamont ‏@BBCAlLamont (http://twitter.com/#!/BBCAlLamont)
No contact between FIFA and SFA re rangers going to Court of Session since yesterday's verdict

[Dashing Bob S]

This journalist writing for "Accountancy Age" posted a headline saying that D&P were going to get paid £17.9m as administrators. I wrote to ask her where she got the figures from, but I've had no reply. If true, this would have been a major news story. But looking at the CVA Proposal from D&P, I think I can see her mistake. Schedule 4 to the Proposal sets out D&P's estimated outturn for RFCIA under three possible (different) scenarios - CVA, NewCo and Liquidation. Ms Accountancy Age journalist has added the three numbers for D&P's fees under each of the outcomes together! Oops.

She has a future in the accountancy game, possibly a future financial controller of a Newco Rangers, or even a senior administrator at Duff and Phelps.

[Caversham Green]

This journalist writing for "Accountancy Age" posted a headline saying that D&P were going to get paid £17.9m as administrators. I wrote to ask her where she got the figures from, but I've had no reply. If true, this would have been a major news story. But looking at the CVA Proposal from D&P, I think I can see her mistake. Schedule 4 to the Proposal sets out D&P's estimated outturn for RFCIA under three possible (different) scenarios - CVA, NewCo and Liquidation. Ms Accountancy Age journalist has added the three numbers for D&P's fees under each of the outcomes together! Oops.

Now that's what you call creative accounting.

[CropleyWasGod]

Now that's what you call someone who failed basic accounting and went off to write about it instead.

Fixed. :greengrin

[PatHead]

She has a future in the accountancy game, possibly a future financial controller of a Newco Rangers, or even a senior administrator at Duff and Phelps.

Hear Vlad is interviewing her as we speak.

[cad]

I wonder when the film of this will come oot ,going by this thread it could be worth millions .

[WindyMiller]

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/scottish/spl-decide-against-fixed-penalty-for-newco-clubs-7804028.html

[joe breezy]

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/scottish/spl-decide-against-fixed-penalty-for-newco-clubs-7804028.html

Doncaster just sounds like an out and out hun every time he speaks


"There is a CVA proposal which have gone to creditors and on that basis we are not anticipating a newco proposal to come forward."

[marinello59]

Doncaster just sounds like an out and out hun every time he speaks


"There is a CVA proposal which have gone to creditors and on that basis we are not anticipating a newco proposal to come forward."

The man is seriously out of his depth. He should be preparing for every outcome rather than just the one he wants.

[lapsedhibee]

Doncaster just sounds like an out and out hun every time he speaks


"There is a CVA proposal which have gone to creditors and on that basis we are not anticipating a newco proposal to come forward."

And let's hope his successor can do basic English.

[HibbyAndy]

Ive no really posted on here as a dinnae ken what am talking aboot, But ill tell you one hing for certain.....



Glasgow Rangers will walk away scot-free. FACT!!!!

[HibeeMG]

Ive no really posted on here as a dinnae ken what am talking aboot, But ill tell you one hing for certain.....



Glasgow Rangers will walk away scot-free. FACT!!!!


You're not wrong........




you don't know what you're talking about. :wink:

[Jim44]

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/scottish/spl-decide-against-fixed-penalty-for-newco-clubs-7804028.html


Doncaster just sounds like an out and out hun every time he speaks


"There is a CVA proposal which have gone to creditors and on that basis we are not anticipating a newco proposal to come forward."


The man is seriously out of his depth. He should be preparing for every outcome rather than just the one he wants.

How does he get away with this? He has spent the last three months putting his own spin on every bit of information he gives. It is outrageous of him to tell creditors what to do and not to do. Surely it's about time some of the blazers, and I include Petrie among them, told him to put a sock in it. If, at the end of this Hun carry on, justice is seen to be done, I think he should be sacked forthwith.

[The Green Goblin]

Hmm, so around 50% more wind and pish. Anyone else like to have 50% more wind and pish.

:faf:

[ehf]

The man is seriously out of his depth. He should be preparing for every outcome rather than just the one he wants.

Well, he should if he were fulfilling his role properly, diligently and in good faith rather than being part of the great Hun conspiracy.

[VickMackie]

Can someone answer this question please.

Are people able to bid now on the event of liquidation?

Everyone seems to e taking it on the basis that this new guy is trying to save the club via a CVA but if that fails then surely liquadation would mean they'd have to open up the assets to new bidders.

Someone might be interested in the assets without wanting to save the club so why would they come forward now?

Is there not a time period by law that after liquadation the assets need to be made available on the market before a final price can be agreed and give companies or people the chance to assess the assets.

****ing joke.

[CropleyWasGod]

Can someone answer this question please.

Are people able to bid now on the event of liquidation?

Everyone seems to e taking it on the basis that this new guy is trying to save the club via a CVA but if that fails then surely liquadation would mean they'd have to open up the assets to new bidders.

Someone might be interested in the assets without wanting to save the club so why would they come forward now?

Is there not a time period by law that after liquadation the assets need to be made available on the market before a final price can be agreed and give companies or people the chance to assess the assets.

****ing joke.

You're right that, if the company goes into liquidation, anyone is entitled to bid for the assets. It's the job of the liquidator to get the best return possible for creditors and shareholders from the assets.

The liquidation process lasts as long as is necessary, until the money has been divvied up amongst those entitled to it.

[VickMackie]

Depends how you read it. Looks to me like any proposals which would be a sanction on a newco has been voted against and each newco application will be treated on an independant basis. I think it has made a route back to the SPL easier.

Agree. Those with something to offer, such as large away gates, will get waved back in. The small clubs will be punted into oblivion.

[joe breezy]

You're right that, if the company goes into liquidation, anyone is entitled to bid for the assets. It's the job of the liquidator to get the best return possible for creditors and shareholders from the assets.

The liquidation process lasts as long as is necessary, until the money has been divvied up amongst those entitled to it.

Will the liquidator be someone like KPMG or would Phelps still want to do it?

Also, interesting it's supposed to be interests of creditors but that's what Administrators are supposed to do and D&P only talk about the interests of Rangers.

Will liquidation change things in the favour of common sense from a legal point of view anyway?

[snooky]

I suppose it's easy to dodge the bullets when the posse's guns are aiming to miss you.

[Haymaker]

Not sure if it has been posted but apparently the St. Mirren chairman spoke to the press and was fairly fuming about Rangers winning in court...

That is another on side hopefully! :aok:

[VickMackie]

You're right that, if the company goes into liquidation, anyone is entitled to bid for the assets. It's the job of the liquidator to get the best return possible for creditors and shareholders from the assets.

The liquidation process lasts as long as is necessary, until the money has been divvied up amongst those entitled to it.

On that basis, how can Greene issue a proposal document with D&P saying the outcome of liquidation and using that as an influential factor in the decision making process?

Surely that section shouldn't exist intact document or a note to say that in that event assets will go to the open market. Maybe it already says that.

If D&P main game is saving Rangers, which is clear, is there anything that stops them accepting the Green offer for the assets 1 minute after liquidation?

This is where my time limit query comes from.

[Seveno]

Agree. Those with something to offer, such as large away gates, will get waved back in. The small clubs will be punted into oblivion.

Alternatively, those that have been guilty of financial mismanagement will suffer less severe sanctions than those that have been found guilty of cheating, fraud, bringing the game into disrepute and serial rule breaking.

Isn't that a better outcome ?

[CropleyWasGod]

Will the liquidator be someone like KPMG or would Phelps still want to do it?

Also, interesting it's supposed to be interests of creditors but that's what Administrators are supposed to do and D&P only talk about the interests of Rangers.

Will liquidation change things in the favour of common sense from a legal point of view anyway?

The liquidator is normally voted in on the basis of relative debt. In other words, it would probably be HMRC's choice.

As for the "common sense" question, it should make things easier to understand from an outsider's point of view. There will be no question of the company continuing to trade; it's all about maximising the sale of the assets.

[shagpile]

Not sure if it has been posted but apparently the St. Mirren chairman spoke to the press and was fairly fuming about Rangers winning in court...

That is another on side hopefully! :aok:


People will only take so much. I hope the rest of them are cheesed off with the huns too.We may at last be seeing the end of the filthy 'institution'

[CropleyWasGod]

On that basis, how can Greene issue a proposal document with D&P saying the outcome of liquidation and using that as an influential factor in the decision making process?

Surely that section shouldn't exist intact document or a note to say that in that event assets will go to the open market. Maybe it already says that.

If D&P main game is saving Rangers, which is clear, is there anything that stops them accepting the Green offer for the assets 1 minute after liquidation?

This is where my time limit query comes from.

On the liquidation outcome being included in the CVA document, of course it's meant to sway the undecided creditor. The smart ones will take advice on their options. The even smarter ones will know that their vote is almost irrelevant, given the voting power of Ticketus and HMRC.

On the bit in bold, D&P won't be the liquidators. However, any liquidator who accepts a low offer that soon would run the risk of that transaction being challenged in the Courts, and overturned.

[Kaiser1962]

Not sure if it has been posted but apparently the St. Mirren chairman spoke to the press and was fairly fuming about Rangers winning in court...

That is another on side hopefully! :aok:


Heard him. The way is now open for us to challenge the penalty decision in the Court.

[VickMackie]

On the liquidation outcome being included in the CVA document, of course it's meant to sway the undecided creditor. The smart ones will take advice on their options. The even smarter ones will know that their vote is almost irrelevant, given the voting power of Ticketus and HMRC.

On the bit in bold, D&P won't be the liquidators. However, any liquidator who accepts a low offer that soon would run the risk of that transaction being challenged in the Courts, and overturned.

Thanks.

Here's hoping that ticktues and HMRC take their chances and bidding for the assets commence. With the winner being anyo e other than the newco.

[Sergio sledge]

Not sure if it has been posted but apparently the St. Mirren chairman spoke to the press and was fairly fuming about Rangers winning in court...

That is another on side hopefully! :aok:

Not a happy chappy.... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/18269245#asset)

[The Green Goblin]

[QUOTE=JeMeSouviens;3249869]These were passed:

•Greater of 10 points or 1/3 of previous season's total deducted from any club entering administration
•Requirement for clubs to pay players on time and to report any failure to pay wages
•Requirement for clubs to report any failure to pay PAYE/NIC
•Player registration embargo imposed on any club failing to pay PAYE/NIC
QUOTE]


I wonder who the bit in bold could refer to...? :hmmm:

No specific penalty for that mentioned. Or is there?

[StevieC]

No specific penalty for that mentioned. Or is there?

The feeling that I get from the meeting today is that they are basically saying that they will no longer have specific penalties for specific "misdemeanours" but will instead deal with each case individually and dish out whatever punishments they see fit.

[CropleyWasGod]

How does he get away with this? He has spent the last three months putting his own spin on every bit of information he gives. It is outrageous of him to tell creditors what to do and not to do. Surely it's about time some of the blazers, and I include Petrie among them, told him to put a sock in it. If, at the end of this Hun carry on, justice is seen to be done, I think he should be sacked forthwith.

I'm going to stick my neck out here and defend Doncaster in this instance.

Rather than just picking on one quote, I watched this interview. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/18270739 He is not wrong in his summing-up of the facts. There IS a CVA out for discussion. There ISN'T a NewCo application in front of the SPL.

As far as I can see, he isn't flying any blue flags and saying "Moan the CVA".

I am not sure what else he can say. He can't comment on something that hasn't happened yet.

[CropleyWasGod]

The feeling that I get from the meeting today is that they are basically saying that they will no longer have specific penalties for specific "misdemeanours" but will instead deal with each case individually and dish out whatever punishments they see fit.

I am curious as to how they are going to police some of those rules. The non-payment of wages is easy..., the relevant players will tell the SPFA, who will tell the SPL.

I am not sure about the non-payment of PAYE. How are they going to find out? Is it self-declaration? ("Have you paid?" "Aye!" "Okay then".). Will there be random audits by teams of flying SPL-men?

Otherwise, how are the SPL going to know? The relationship between HMRC and a taxpayer remains confidential until such times as it reaches the Courts.

[Jim44]

I'm going to stick my neck out here and defend Doncaster in this instance.

Rather than just picking on one quote, I watched this interview. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/18270739 He is not wrong in his summing-up of the facts. There IS a CVA out for discussion. There ISN'T a NewCo application in front of the SPL.

As far as I can see, he isn't flying any blue flags and saying "Moan the CVA".

I am not sure what else he can say. He can't comment on something that hasn't happened yet.

"We do not anticipate an application for a newco.". On what grounds does he base this? Does he believe that the CVA will be accepted or does he think it will end in liquidation?

[CropleyWasGod]

"We do not anticipate an application for a newco.". On what grounds does he base this? Does he believe that the CVA will be accepted or does he think it will end in liquidation?

He actually said... and I paraphrase "There is a CVA out for consideration. On that basis, we do not anticipate a NewCo application."

I think he's quite right to say that. Stating the facts, without judgement.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I am curious as to how they are going to police some of those rules. The non-payment of wages is easy..., the relevant players will tell the SPFA, who will tell the SPL.

I am not sure about the non-payment of PAYE. How are they going to find out? Is it self-declaration? ("Have you paid?" "Aye!" "Okay then".). Will there be random audits by teams of flying SPL-men?

Otherwise, how are the SPL going to know? The relationship between HMRC and a taxpayer remains confidential until such times as it reaches the Courts.

I'd imagine it would be a case of self declaration, however if you have been found not to be paying and have not declared it, i.e. you end up in court, then you will get hammered as this is a clear breach of the rules.

Can't get my head round what all of todays changes mean, but I reckon rangers are getting seriously close to dissapearing with there actions:flag:

[lapsedhibee]

"We do not anticipate an application for a newco.". On what grounds does he base this? Does he believe that the CVA will be accepted or does he think it will end in liquidation?

Both 'expert' interviewees on Newsnight Scotchland the other night seemed certain that for the proposal to have got this far, the major creditors Hector and Ticketus would have to have given some sort of nod of approval during the informal dialogue which (the experts claimed) must have been going on. So my guess is that The Donkey is taking it as read that the two voters who matter will vote to accept.

[Just Alf]

I am curious as to how they are going to police some of those rules. The non-payment of wages is easy..., the relevant players will tell the SPFA, who will tell the SPL.

I am not sure about the non-payment of PAYE. How are they going to find out? Is it self-declaration? ("Have you paid?" "Aye!" "Okay then".). Will there be random audits by teams of flying SPL-men?

Otherwise, how are the SPL going to know? The relationship between HMRC and a taxpayer remains confidential until such times as it reaches the Courts.

That's Exactly what I was wondering!


It really needs something like

If you're unable to pay PAYE etc then tell us and penalties as per entering admin will apply (example only!)

If however you don't tell us and we find oot then it curtains

Ie

Admin penalty + demotion to 3 rd div + no prize money for 3 years upon return to SPL.

something like that, I'd also add the penalty applies to licence regardless of owner.


If it doesn't have that then if it was me I'd just keep my head down and hope to pay off HMRC before it got public

[CropleyWasGod]

I'd imagine it would be a case of self declaration, however if you have been found not to be paying and have not declared it, i.e. you end up in court, then you will get hammered as this is a clear breach of the rules.

Can't get my head round what all of todays changes mean, but I reckon rangers are getting seriously close to dissapearing with there actions:flag:

When it gets to the Court stage, it is really serious. HMRC don't take action for PAYE that is only a few months overdue. In other words, someone could fail to pay their PAYE for months then, just before it went to to Court, pay it in one go and the SPL would be none the wiser.

[WindyMiller]

Both 'expert' interviewees on Newsnight Scotchland the other night seemed certain that for the proposal to have got this far, the major creditors Hector and Ticketus would have to have given some sort of nod of approval during the informal dialogue which (the experts claimed) must have been going on. So my guess is that The Donkey is taking it as read that the two voters who matter will vote to accept.

Greene will pull out if the SFA increase the punishment in the wake of the court-case.

The SPL also seem less inclined to allow a newco in.

[millarco]

I am curious as to how they are going to police some of those rules. The non-payment of wages is easy..., the relevant players will tell the SPFA, who will tell the SPL.

I am not sure about the non-payment of PAYE. How are they going to find out? Is it self-declaration? ("Have you paid?" "Aye!" "Okay then".). Will there be random audits by teams of flying SPL-men?

Otherwise, how are the SPL going to know? The relationship between HMRC and a taxpayer remains confidential until such times as it reaches the Courts.

Am I right in saying the punishment is an immediate transfer embargo? Which would be pretty pointless outside the transfer window surely? It might have stopped Hearts signing Craig Beattie but normally there wouldn't be any activity.

[Just Alf]

Greene will pull out if the SFA increase the punishment in the wake of the court-case.

The SPL also seem less inclined to allow a newco in.

A couple of earlier posts hinted that the "sale" had hit a delay..... As Green was at the meeting I wonder if he's just realised the strength of feeling against the cheaters?

[Part/Time Supporter]

I am curious as to how they are going to police some of those rules. The non-payment of wages is easy..., the relevant players will tell the SPFA, who will tell the SPL.

I am not sure about the non-payment of PAYE. How are they going to find out? Is it self-declaration? ("Have you paid?" "Aye!" "Okay then".). Will there be random audits by teams of flying SPL-men?

Otherwise, how are the SPL going to know? The relationship between HMRC and a taxpayer remains confidential until such times as it reaches the Courts.

All they have to do is get each club to sign a 64/8 mandate in favour of the SPL.

[HibbiesandtheBaddies]

What Doncaster wanted was for the green light to be given to allowing newco's to rejoin the spl in place of the club that is liquidated with a fixed set of penalties, in this case a 10 point deduction and financial restrictions for two years. This would mean that it was pre-approved for the Huns to get back into the spl straight away without a vote. By rejecting those two proposals the rest of the spl have knocked that on the head and it means that any attempt to get a newco into the spl will be dealt with case by case and it's approval and any sanctions imposed with re-entry will be decided by a majority vote of the spl member clubs and not the spl board.

As it stands if rangers are liquidated they need the majority of the clubs in the spl to agree to allow them back in, not the sfa, not the spl board, and certainly not Doncaster, and if they don't get the majority vote then it's applying to the sfl and division 3.


:agree:

[SurferRosa]

Maybe someone of a legal persuasion or someone who understands the SFAs rules relating to this could clarify this for me...

Reading through the comedy gold that is RangersMedia, they keep insisting that the SFA rules provided no route to take their case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Now, as i understand it the SFA rules also say that a member club cannot take the SFA to a civil court...:dunno:

I dont see how they could not just have taken their case to the CAS anyway......what was stopping them, as they seem to have completely ignored the SFA rulebook in the first place....:confused:


Or is it ok for " the people " to do whatever they like....

[HibeeMG]

From Twittersphere:

Mark Daly ‏@markdaly2 (https://twitter.com/#!/markdaly2)
Revealed: the emails which set out the deal between Craig Whyte & Duff & Phelps in the days leading up to administration. Online at midnight

[joe breezy]

From Twittersphere:

Mark Daly ‏@markdaly2 (https://twitter.com/#!/markdaly2)
Revealed: the emails which set out the deal between Craig Whyte & Duff & Phelps in the days leading up to administration. Online at midnight

Wahey, never a quiet moment...

There should be someone taking a note of all of this and surely getting involved, like the Strathclyde Police for one...

[Matty_Jack04]

When does the SPL season begin? Is it when the first ball is kicked or when fixtures are released... I'm just thinking about them still being in the muck when it's time to get going and a 30point penalty is triggered

[Gus Fring]

When does the SPL season begin? Is it when the first ball is kicked or when fixtures are released... I'm just thinking about them still being in the muck when it's time to get going and a 30point penalty is triggered

The season officially starts at Kick Off for the concerned teams first fixture.

[Part/Time Supporter]

When does the SPL season begin? Is it when the first ball is kicked or when fixtures are released... I'm just thinking about them still being in the muck when it's time to get going and a 30point penalty is triggered

That wouldn't apply to them (this time) because they went into administration before the rules were changed. If the Huns are still in administration in August (possible but not likely) they would be -10 points automatically.

[At The Edge]

From Twittersphere:

Mark Daly ‏@markdaly2 (https://twitter.com/#!/markdaly2)
Revealed: the emails which set out the deal between Craig Whyte & Duff & Phelps in the days leading up to administration. Online at midnight

i hope the hole gets a bit deeper after these come out and duff and duffer are exposed as being as bent as a nine bob note.......well even more than they already are, allegedly:wink:

[HibeeMG]

i hope the hole gets a bit deeper after these come out and duff and duffer are exposed as being as bent as a nine bob note.......well even more than they already are, allegedly:wink:

I would hope a copy has been sent to the big bosses at the Insolvency Practitioners guys.

I've got a feeling that the whole thing is counting down to a huge d-day where the BTC is resolved, FIFA come charging in, the polis get involved and D&P get punted for being dodgy.

It's felt like a (big) house of cards from the start. The media, Donkey Doncaster et al have been trying their best to keep the house upright but these things have a habit of having to much weight to stand up.

[jgl07]

I am curious as to how they are going to police some of those rules. The non-payment of wages is easy..., the relevant players will tell the SPFA, who will tell the SPL.

I am not sure about the non-payment of PAYE. How are they going to find out? Is it self-declaration? ("Have you paid?" "Aye!" "Okay then".). Will there be random audits by teams of flying SPL-men?

Otherwise, how are the SPL going to know? The relationship between HMRC and a taxpayer remains confidential until such times as it reaches the Courts.

The latter is very regular in the case of Hearts!

[ehf]

He actually said... and I paraphrase "There is a CVA out for consideration. On that basis, we do not anticipate a NewCo application."

I think he's quite right to say that. Stating the facts, without judgement.

Save that everyone knows the CVA proposal is a brazen attempt at asset-stripping/creditor-shafting which is never going to be accepted...

[down-the-slope]

On BBC

Rangers "got away lightly" with recent sanctions for bringing them game into disrepute, according to the former Scottish FA president John McBeth.
The Ibrox club had a 12-month transfer embargo imposed by the SFA overturned by the Court of Session on Tuesday. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18248766)
Speaking to BBC Scotland, John MacBeth said: ''Rangers got away lightly with their transfer embargo.''
And MacBeth said the SFA could impose stricter punishment on the club.
''The SFA should go away and look at their books to determine what their next step should be," he continued. "They could throw them out of the league.''
McBeth, who was a vocal critic of FIFA president Sepp Blatter while in office, also claimed that SPL clubs could survive in a league without Rangers.
''Football would survive without Rangers, maybe not at the same level, and the game would may be lose some fans - but so be it,'' he said.
"If you look after the sport the money will follow you, if you look after the money you'll kill the sport.''

The first "administrator" to have spoken any sense in this entire matter.


Out of several 1000's of posts on this thread...that sums up the issue perfectly :agree:

[Tynie01011973]

Out of several 1000's of posts on this thread...that sums up the issue perfectly :agree:

Pity it is said by a former SFA President though.

The current incumbents show little sign of agreeing with his thoughts tho :grr:

[Onion]

Greene will pull out if the SFA increase the punishment in the wake of the court-case.

The SPL also seem less inclined to allow a newco in.

Wonder what the bookies are pricing on RFC getting out of Admin via a CVA. IMHO there are soooo many obstacles in their way, that the odds must be extremely slim. If that's that case, then you can accept that Greene and D&P are already working on Plan B - liquidation, move assets to New Co - and that everyone (SFA/SPL) also know this and will be spinning their PR and positioning themselves for the big decisions - SPL & punishments. The only question left is will the punishments be just, and support the integrity of the game ?

[stokesmessiah]

I do wonder if they do go the Newco route now and if FIFA/UEFA are breathing down the neck of the SFA then just how easy is it going to be for them to get back into the SPL.

[Brando7]

I'm wondering if Green will walk if the CVA is not agreed since there no indication on sanctions until the 12 clubs meets once the newco application is issued, will he risk buying not knowing of future penalties + there the threat of being kicked out league & or cups for going to court....think he might be starting to with he hadn't bothered gettng involved

[Eyrie]

I noticed the following is in the CVA proposal (http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles/c9/b3/0,,5~177097,00.pdf) -


4.23 In the event that either this CVA is not approved, or the other Conditions of the loan are not satisfied or waived by 23 July 2012, Sevco is contractually obliged to purchase the business and assets of the Company for £5,500,000 by 30 July 2012. All further terms of that sale have been agreed in advance and are confidential.


So if the CVA isn't approved then Green's newco will buy the assets at a pre-agreed price and there won't be an open market sale. Question - is this legal? How can it guarantee the best return to the creditors?

[Hibs Class]

I'm wondering if Green will walk if the CVA is not agreed since there no indication on sanctions until the 12 clubs meets once the newco application is issued, will he risk buying not knowing of future penalties + there the threat of being kicked out league & or cups for going to court....think he might be starting to with he hadn't bothered gettng involved


Green has made it clear (in a statement on huns.com in the last day or two) that he "is not the Salvation Army" but is in it to make money. As soon as he hits the first obstacle he'll be off faster than fat ally in a pie eating contest.

[SteveHFC]

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/575140_393585887358159_183788011671282_1198946_122 8933496_n.jpg

[green glory]

Green has made it clear (in a statement on huns.com in the last day or two) that he "is not the Salvation Army" but is in it to make money. As soon as he hits the first obstacle he'll be off faster than fat ally in a pie eating contest.

If there's no guarantee of a newco bigot club in the SPL, will he still want the assets for 5.5m? That'll depend on how much he thinks he can make on the land etc.

[down-the-slope]

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/575140_393585887358159_183788011671282_1198946_122 8933496_n.jpg


:greengrin

[brianmc]

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/575140_393585887358159_183788011671282_1198946_122 8933496_n.jpg

Hope you don't mind but I've shared that gem via twitter :-)

[SteveHFC]

Hope you don't mind but I've shared that gem via twitter :-)

Not at all :wink:

[Brando7]

I noticed the following is in the CVA proposal (http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles/c9/b3/0,,5~177097,00.pdf) -



So if the CVA isn't approved then Green's newco will buy the assets at a pre-agreed price and there won't be an open market sale. Question - is this legal? How can it guarantee the best return to the creditors?

It the 1st time i've had time to go through the CVA n that just caught my eye also

Paragragh 4.23 In the event that either this CVA is not approved, or the other Conditions of the loan are not satisfied or waived by 23 July 2012, Sevco is contractually obliged to purchase the business and assets of the Company for £5,500,000 by 30 July 2012. All further terms of that sale have been agreed in advance and are confidential.

however on the Estimated Outcome Statement only states £4,590,214 +£200k for Exclusivity Payment so they £709,786 missing from the sale to start with????

lastly for now with 49 unsecured creditors still on the fiuures as TBC and still not knowing wot penny in the pound u would be getting they all mugs if they agree to a CVA
then there the cash at bank £3,403,762 was that not the fiure quoted moths ago that bound to be spent as they out of money come 1st June???

[Part/Time Supporter]

It the 1st time i've had time to go through the CVA n that just caught my eye also

Paragragh 4.23 In the event that either this CVA is not approved, or the other Conditions of the loan are not satisfied or waived by 23 July 2012, Sevco is contractually obliged to purchase the business and assets of the Company for £5,500,000 by 30 July 2012. All further terms of that sale have been agreed in advance and are confidential.

however on the Estimated Outcome Statement only states £4,590,214 +£200k for Exclusivity Payment so they £709,786 missing from the sale to start with????

lastly for now with 49 unsecured creditors still on the fiuures as TBC and still not knowing wot penny in the pound u would be getting they all mugs if they agree to a CVA
then there the cash at bank £3,403,762 was that not the fiure quoted moths ago that bound to be spent as they out of money come 1st June???

1. The £4.59M will be their valuation of the asset value in selling to the open market, in the event of the Green proposals falling through and RFC being liquidated. Presumably there will be conditions attached to the £5.5M "newco" offer, just as there are conditions attached to the CVA offer. They're just not telling us what they are now.

2. You'll see the line below says that RFC have lost £3.6M since going into administration, which has wiped out the cash balance (from selling Jelavic) at administration date. The offer basically consists of whatever they can sell the fixed assets for + £2M from selling players this summer.

[Cheshire Hibee]

I'm going to stick my neck out here and defend Doncaster in this instance.

Rather than just picking on one quote, I watched this interview. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/18270739 He is not wrong in his summing-up of the facts. There IS a CVA out for discussion. There ISN'T a NewCo application in front of the SPL.

As far as I can see, he isn't flying any blue flags and saying "Moan the CVA".

I am not sure what else he can say. He can't comment on something that hasn't happened yet.

CWG I agree with you on this which is basically what he was saying to us at the meeting, I think until a Newco scenario arises there isn't much more he can say.

[Eyrie]

It the 1st time i've had time to go through the CVA n that just caught my eye also

Paragragh 4.23 In the event that either this CVA is not approved, or the other Conditions of the loan are not satisfied or waived by 23 July 2012, Sevco is contractually obliged to purchase the business and assets of the Company for £5,500,000 by 30 July 2012. All further terms of that sale have been agreed in advance and are confidential.

however on the Estimated Outcome Statement only states £4,590,214 +£200k for Exclusivity Payment so they £709,786 missing from the sale to start with????
I'm assuming that the £5.3m is mainly the property, despite being shown against only Intellectual Property, Goodwill and Player Contracts. Otherwise the realisable value of the property has been completed omitted in the newco scenario (a level of incompetence beyond even Duff and Duffer). The balance will be for those three items and I assume is low due to players leaving the club, as the player registrations would be worth that on their own even allowing for the cut price transfer fees negotiated as part of the wage deductions.

[Cheshire Hibee]

We may have gone quiet at SPL Fan Surveys but until things develop there isnt much we can do though we are monitoring the situation daily and i do have an invite to a further meeting which at this stage I don't believe is worthwhile until we see how things pan out re RFC.

We did however send this out to all SPL clubs ahead of todays meeting as a reminder we are still here and havent gone away.



All club chairmen should think carefully on how the supporters of THEIR club will react in the event of a Newco club being allowed direct re-entry into the SPL.
A lot of statements have been made about how we need a strong Rangers in the SPL but ask yourself how strong will Rangers be if they are reformed as a Newco bear in mind under EUFA rules as a Newco they would not be eligible for European competition for three years therefore they would be denied significant revenue streams.
Would a Newco RFC command the attendances they currently receive or would we see a return to the crowds the pre David Murray era due to the fact a Newco RFC would not be as competitive.
Again there is speculation regarding the Sky TV deal which if statements suggest is dependent on four Old firm matches per season again would they be willing to pay as much knowing that they may not be as competitive.
Some Chairmen have already stated that they feel they need the revenue generated by the 1 or 2 visits from RFC dependent on whether they finish in the top 6 ask yourself if you vote to allow a Newco will this cover the loss of revenue you will suffer if as fans who took part in our survey state they will walk away from the SPL follow through on their threat and a large number of fans of other clubs are now saying they will boycott away matches of any club who votes for a Newco to allow this to happen.
We are in no way threatening clubs by our actions we are just passing on the thoughts of Scottish football fans from all clubs bear in mind 54% of fans of the 16527 fans who took part have said they will walk away can you as a club afford to take the risk.
You should also bear in mind that both members of the Old Firm had aspirations of leaving Scottish football in the not too distant past in search of a place in the EPL and given the opportunity as unlikely as it seems would they think twice about your club in those circumstances, no doubt we would hear how Scottish Football would benefit i.e. be more competitive etc surely there is an opportunity for you as club chairmen to bring about those changes for the benefit of all.
The Scottish game is dying and if you make the wrong decision then you will accelerate its demise through ignoring SPORTING INTEGRITY over finance.

[SteveHFC]

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4345788/Hampden-chiefs-summit-today.html:thumbsup:

[Haymaker]

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4345788/Hampden-chiefs-summit-today.html:thumbsup:

Things are building, please let this happen!

[hibs0666]

From Twittersphere:

Mark Daly ‏@markdaly2 (https://twitter.com/#!/markdaly2)
Revealed: the emails which set out the deal between Craig Whyte & Duff & Phelps in the days leading up to administration. Online at midnight

Anyone found these bad boys yet?

[hibs0666]

Green trying to win the power struggle...

SFA must tell Green to bolt and take the medicine (http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4347869/Charles-Green-wants-talks-with-Regan.html)

[SteveHFC]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18212291

[cabbageandribs1875]

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/4153/buns2a.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/62/buns2a.jpg/)


Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

[Brando7]

we may have gone quiet at spl fan surveys but until things develop there isnt much we can do though we are monitoring the situation daily and i do have an invite to a further meeting which at this stage i don't believe is worthwhile until we see how things pan out re rfc.

We did however send this out to all spl clubs ahead of todays meeting as a reminder we are still here and havent gone away.



All club chairmen should think carefully on how the supporters of their club will react in the event of a newco club being allowed direct re-entry into the spl.
A lot of statements have been made about how we need a strong rangers in the spl but ask yourself how strong will rangers be if they are reformed as a newco bear in mind under eufa rules as a newco they would not be eligible for european competition for three years therefore they would be denied significant revenue streams.
Would a newco rfc command the attendances they currently receive or would we see a return to the crowds the pre david murray era due to the fact a newco rfc would not be as competitive.
Again there is speculation regarding the sky tv deal which if statements suggest is dependent on four old firm matches per season again would they be willing to pay as much knowing that they may not be as competitive.
Some chairmen have already stated that they feel they need the revenue generated by the 1 or 2 visits from rfc dependent on whether they finish in the top 6 ask yourself if you vote to allow a newco will this cover the loss of revenue you will suffer if as fans who took part in our survey state they will walk away from the spl follow through on their threat and a large number of fans of other clubs are now saying they will boycott away matches of any club who votes for a newco to allow this to happen.
We are in no way threatening clubs by our actions we are just passing on the thoughts of scottish football fans from all clubs bear in mind 54% of fans of the 16527 fans who took part have said they will walk away can you as a club afford to take the risk.
You should also bear in mind that both members of the old firm had aspirations of leaving scottish football in the not too distant past in search of a place in the epl and given the opportunity as unlikely as it seems would they think twice about your club in those circumstances, no doubt we would hear how scottish football would benefit i.e. Be more competitive etc surely there is an opportunity for you as club chairmen to bring about those changes for the benefit of all.
The scottish game is dying and if you make the wrong decision then you will accelerate its demise through ignoring sporting integrity over finance.

maybe a vote of no confidence in doncaster is wots needed?

[HibeeMG]

Anyone found these bad boys yet?


Nothing yet. Only this:

Alasdair Lamont ‏@BBCAlLamont (https://twitter.com/#!/BBCAlLamont)
Apologies for the lack of publication of that new @markdaly2 (https://twitter.com/#!/markdaly2) story. Not sure why it hasn't appeared. May well be held till tomorrow now.

[HibeeMG]

All club chairmen should think carefully on how the supporters of THEIR club will react in the event of a Newco club being allowed direct re-entry into the SPL.
A lot of statements have been made about how we need a strong Rangers in the SPL but ask yourself how strong will Rangers be if they are reformed as a Newco bear in mind under EUFA rules as a Newco they would not be eligible for European competition for three years therefore they would be denied significant revenue streams.


I hope you noticed that it should be UEFA and not EUFA.

Seemingly EUFA is Early Unilateral Follicular Aspiration (an assisted pregnancy procedure). I know they want to be re-born as a new club but that's taking things a bit too far!
:wink:

[HibeeMG]

Here's what Mark Daly was talking about earlier:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18268346

I'll let those more qualified than me pick the bones out of it!

[CropleyWasGod]

All they have to do is get each club to sign a 64/8 mandate in favour of the SPL.

Wouldn't work either . That way, the club's accountants would be left out of the loop

[Lungo--Drom]

Yeeeehhhhaaaaa!!!!!

Woo hoo, this could be it (prays silently at foot of bed). GIRUY ya dirty cheatin hun b******s!!!

:D :D :D :D :D


http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4345788/Hampden-chiefs-summit-today.html:thumbsup:

[Part/Time Supporter]

Wouldn't work either . That way, the club's accountants would be left out of the loop

HMRC outlines how you can have more than one agent for PAYE:


PAYE for employers

For PAYE for employers a client may want more than one agent to act on their behalf and deal with payroll issues. HMRC's PAYE for employers system is only able to send out information such as tax code notices P6 and P9 to one agent. Clients who have more than one agent dealing with their payroll matters must choose which one 'lead' agent they want to receive this information.

If you are becoming the 'lead' agent, you must be authorised using either the agent online authorisation service or by completing form 64-8. Clients can authorise HMRC to send information to you either online or by using form FBI 2.

If your client is already using an agent who continues to act for them as the 'lead' agent, please do not submit a form 64-8 for your authorisation as this may result in the 'lead' agent's details being overwritten.

If your client wishes to nominate you as a second agent, they should send a letter to HMRC with details of the secondary authority so that your records can be updated accordingly.

And remember, if you only wish to file information online on behalf of your client, and do not need HMRC to communicate with you directly, you can do so without submitting a form FBI 2.

[Part/Time Supporter]

Yeeeehhhhaaaaa!!!!!

Woo hoo, this could be it (prays silently at foot of bed). GIRUY ya dirty cheatin hun b******s!!!

:D :D :D :D :D


Things are building, please let this happen!


http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4345788/Hampden-chiefs-summit-today.html:thumbsup:

yesterday's paper

today's is full of special pleading by Green.

[lapsedhibee]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18212291

And at the end of a linked article there,

Mr Clark said he and Mr Whitehouse had "a statutory duty to look after the interests of creditors and keep the business going, which we have managed to do under extremely challenging circumstances".

According to gurus on this site the bold is just a straightforward lie, is it not? Why have D&D not been relieved yet? :dunno:

[shagpile]

And at the end of a linked article there,

Mr Clark said he and Mr Whitehouse had "a statutory duty to look after the interests of creditors and keep the business going, which we have managed to do under extremely challenging circumstances".

According to gurus on this site the bold is just a straightforward lie, is it not? Why have D&D not been relieved yet? :dunno:


Whatever is actually going on, they ---D&P---- have been in on it from day one. If they hadn't been in on it, then they would have been screaming blue murder ages ago.

[down-the-slope]

Wouldn't work either . That way, the club's accountants would be left out of the loop



:aok: and whats the problem with that....they should be used to it :greengrin

[down-the-slope]

yesterday's paper

today's is full of special pleading by Green.


The dawning realisation....and an excuse to use this pic again :greengrin

8313

[StevieC]

Green trying to win the power struggle...

SFA must tell Green to bolt and take the medicine (http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4347869/Charles-Green-wants-talks-with-Regan.html)

That's Green seriously flapping now. I expect him to walk away as soon as the SFA bin his begging letter.
The cheek of these guys has no boundaries. Take the SFA to court to teach them a lesson about punishing Rangers and then come looking for leniency when they discover that theyve just shot themselves in the foot!

[SurferRosa]

That's Green seriously flapping now. I expect him to walk away as soon as the SFA bin his begging letter.
The cheek of these guys has no boundaries. Take the SFA to court to teach them a lesson about punishing Rangers and then come looking for leniency when they discover that theyve just shot themselves in the foot!

It shouldn`t make any difference now. FIFA are in on this and their choice should be made clear.

Hang Rangers out to dry or Scottish football will suffer. I dont see that they can make any other decision, and no begging from Charlie Green should make any difference.

[McSwanky]

"Project William" :faf:

[CropleyWasGod]

HMRC outlines how you can have more than one agent for PAYE:

Ah, ok, cheers.

:aok:

[CropleyWasGod]

And at the end of a linked article there,

Mr Clark said he and Mr Whitehouse had "a statutory duty to look after the interests of creditors and keep the business going, which we have managed to do under extremely challenging circumstances".

According to gurus on this site the bold is just a straightforward lie, is it not? Why have D&D not been relieved yet? :dunno:

It's a lie and it isn't :greengrin Sometimes the interests of creditors are best served by keeping the business going. But, legally speaking, it is supposed to be about the rights of creditors and shareholders.

[magpie1892]

"Project William" :faf:

That cuaght my eye as well. Classic.

If you were trying to buy Celtc: 'Project Declan'?

[CMac1988]

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4347823/FIFA-keeping-eye-on-Regan.html

[Gettin' Auld]

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/575140_393585887358159_183788011671282_1198946_122 8933496_n.jpg

:thumbsup:

[johnbc70]

"Project William" :faf:

I saw that as well, just shows you how they have to bring their sectarian bile into everything they do. Its funny but sad and predictable as well.

[Geo_1875]

It's a lie and it isn't :greengrin Sometimes the interests of creditors are best served by keeping the business going. But, legally speaking, it is supposed to be about the rights of creditors and shareholders.

But surely if keeping the business going us in the best interests of creditors etc. that is purely coincidence and not statutory in any sense of the word.

[down-the-slope]

"Project William" :faf:

The long hand for Dick :agree:

[magpie1892]

I saw that as well, just shows you how they have to bring their sectarian bile into everything they do. Its funny but sad and predictable as well.

I rather think Whyte was taking the piss, as opposed to making a statement. For me, it has the feel of a cat toying with a mouse.

[down-the-slope]

One of the Andy Gorams getting in on the act now they see they have made things worse

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4347849/Gers-have-to-be-punished-but-booting-them-out-of-football-is-just-madness.html

[CropleyWasGod]

But surely if keeping the business going us in the best interests of creditors etc. that is purely coincidence and not statutory in any sense of the word.

Indeed. :agree:

[hibs0666]

One of the Andy Gorams getting in on the act now they see they have made things worse

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4347849/Gers-have-to-be-punished-but-booting-them-out-of-football-is-just-madness.html

As usual the apologists fail to grasp the magnitude of the misdemeanours committed.

[Jim44]

One of the Andy Gorams getting in on the act now they see they have made things worse

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4347849/Gers-have-to-be-punished-but-booting-them-out-of-football-is-just-madness.html

Andy Goram defending Rangers is akin to Rommel defending the Third Reich.

[lapsedhibee]

As usual the apologists fail to grasp the magnitude of the misdemeanours committed.

Think the apologists' main failing is that they all seem to believe, one way or another, that it is the huns themselves who should ultimately decide what their punishment is to be. If they want to pay £20 tax instead of £75m, why are people conspiring against them to prevent this? Arrogant tossers!

[Just Alf]

One of the Andy Gorams getting in on the act now they see they have made things worse

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4347849/Gers-have-to-be-punished-but-booting-them-out-of-football-is-just-madness.html

He says....

"The transfer embargo would have killed Rangers, it’s as simple as that."

Did Rangers not basically impose similar on themselves a sason or so ago? .... I'm sure they went more than a year without a signing!

[Steve-O]

Goram's bit about how they can't kick Rangers out cos Naismith and McGregor would refuse to play for Scotland is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read!

[Ozyhibby]

I don't much care what D&P are up to. Most important for me is that the football penalties for what they have done are appropriate. At least a one year suspension should be applied.

[Steve-O]

He says....

"The transfer embargo would have killed Rangers, it’s as simple as that."

Did Rangers not basically impose similar on themselves a sason or so ago? .... I'm sure they went more than a year without a signing!

The fool also seems to suggest that relegation would be accepted, and therefore he thinks relegation is better than a tranfer embargo? Ok then Andy :rolleyes:

[magpie1892]

Andy Goram defending Rangers is akin to Rommel defending the Third Reich.

Try Goebbels or Himmler. Rommel hated Hitler and the Nazi Party.

[Jim44]

Try Goebbels or Himmler. Rommel hated Hitler and the Nazi Party.

Pedant alert. :greengrin

[magpie1892]

Pedant alert. :greengrin

Jawohl, Oberleutnant Jim.

[Stevie Reid]

Goram's bit about how they can't kick Rangers out cos Naismith and McGregor would refuse to play for Scotland is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read!

Especially given he turned down the only chance he ever had to play in a World Cup over a burd (IIRC).

[Big Frank]

Try Goebbels or Himmler. Rommel hated Hitler and the Nazi Party.

Yes, he hated them.

Hated them enough to swear an oath to Hitler and accept the fieldmarshalls baton.

He hated them enough to send his troops to kill others.

he hated them soooooo much he invaded other countries on their behalf.

:aok:

[Lungo--Drom]

I like that analogy :)

And of course both fell from glory....

They're all huns too:

Erwin Rommel
Adolf Hitler
Andy Goram
Ally McCoist


Andy Goram defending Rangers is akin to Rommel defending the Third Reich.

[Just Alf]

From Hun media re Green's meeting with Regan ..... these guys just don't get it do they? :lolrangers:




"It would make a lot of sense if they can reach an agreeable solution for the benefit of all concerned.

I'm sure Green won't be too heavy with his demands for compensation for the abuse of rules that led to an illegal embargo being imposed upon the club."

[shagpile]

From Hun media re Green's meeting with Regan ..... these guys just don't get it do they? :lolrangers:




"It would make a lot of sense if they can reach an agreeable solution for the benefit of all concerned.

I'm sure Green won't be too heavy with his demands for compensation for the abuse of rules that led to an illegal embargo being imposed upon the club."

LoL. They never will get it.:greengrin

[calmac12000]

From Hun media re Green's meeting with Regan ..... these guys just don't get it do they? :lolrangers:




"It would make a lot of sense if they can reach an agreeable solution for the benefit of all concerned.

I'm sure Green won't be too heavy with his demands for compensation for the abuse of rules that led to an illegal embargo being imposed upon the club."

They've just never got it from day one have they? Unfortunately, that imbeciles and bigots like Goram are given a platform to peddle their nonsense says it all.

[magpie1892]

Yes, he hated them.

Hated them enough to swear an oath to Hitler and accept the fieldmarshalls baton.

He hated them enough to send his troops to kill others.

he hated them soooooo much he invaded other countries on their behalf.

:aok:

You need to brush up on your history, Frank!

[Cropley10]

The HMRC deal will have been brokered a long time ago to allow takeover negotiations. They have been quiet throughout.

Absolute. Nonsense.

HMRC don't do deals over PAYE/NIC nor do they deals when a sum has been agreed ie deferred options or The Wee Tax Case. Whyte has attempted to use this a bargaining position IMO.

Matters of tax are confidential, which is why they've been 'quiet throughout'.

[lapsedhibee]

Absolute. Nonsense.

HMRC don't do deals over PAYE/NIC nor do they deals when a sum has been agreed ie deferred options or The Wee Tax Case. Whyte has attempted to use this a bargaining position IMO.

Matters of tax are confidential, which is why they've been 'quiet throughout'.

The reporting of Hector's attitude puzzles me.

On here the feeling has been very much that Hector doesn't do cut-price deals, doesn't do secret deals, doesn't do walking away, etc, which is always pleasing to read. Yet on Newsnight Scotchland this week two experts - one a weegie insolvency wallah and one beamed up from London city - both hinted that Hector would have been discussing the CVA proposal, and informally approving it, before it was made public.

I am beginning to wonder now whether the two experts were planted hun apologists. Not apologists of the normal Hately/Jardine/Goram slavering variety, but subtler plants.

[ehf]

Goram's bit about how they can't kick Rangers out cos Naismith and McGregor would refuse to play for Scotland is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read!

:agree:

What he actually said was:

Is this the same SFA who would then ask Allan McGregor and Steven Naismith to play for Scotland, having effectively just put them out of a job?

As if McGregor and Naismith are not going to hotfoot it out of Greyskull as soon as the transfer window opens!

Here's another gem:

That sanction seemed to be a non-starter to me from the word go, and it was certainly no surprise to me when Lord Glennie agreed with that assessment.

But here's the best bit of all:

And I had to laugh when I saw FIFA getting involved as well. Do they not have more important matters to worry about?

Such a shame to see a Hibs legend make such a phanny of himself.

[Big Frank]

You need to brush up on your history, Frank!

Everything I have said is fact maggie. :aok:

[CropleyWasGod]

The reporting of Hector's attitude puzzles me.

On here the feeling has been very much that Hector doesn't do cut-price deals, doesn't do secret deals, doesn't do walking away, etc, which is always pleasing to read. Yet on Newsnight Scotchland this week two experts - one a weegie insolvency wallah and one beamed up from London city - both hinted that Hector would have been discussing the CVA proposal, and informally approving it, before it was made public.

I am beginning to wonder now whether the two experts were planted hun apologists. Not apologists of the normal Hately/Jardine/Goram slavering variety, but subtler plants.

It wouldn't surprise me if the admins had had meetings with HMRC to discuss their attitude to a CVA. That is the angle from which the two experts will be talking.

Equally so, however, HMRC have their own policies towards CVA's. If meetings have taken place, the admins will have been reminded of them.

[Hibbyradge]

http://www.companyrescue.co.uk/company-rescue/guides/voluntary-arrangement-service-cva

They (HMRC) WANT to help rescue viable companies!

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/insmanual/ins10103.htm

"The purpose of VAS is to

...enable HMRC to make a real contribution to the development of the rescue culture to which Government is firmly committed."

[HFC 0-7]

http://www.companyrescue.co.uk/company-rescue/guides/voluntary-arrangement-service-cva

They (HMRC) WANT to help rescue viable companies!

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/insmanual/ins10103.htm

"The purpose of VAS is to

...enable HMRC to make a real contribution to the development of the rescue culture to which Government is firmly committed."

Sounds to me like the CVA will be agreed should Greene be able to show that they will be able to pay their taxes in future.

[s.a.m]

http://www.companyrescue.co.uk/company-rescue/guides/voluntary-arrangement-service-cva

They (HMRC) WANT to help rescue viable companies!

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/insmanual/ins10103.htm

"The purpose of VAS is to

...enable HMRC to make a real contribution to the development of the rescue culture to which Government is firmly committed."

Is there not an issue of scale (and willfulness) here, though?

[CropleyWasGod]

http://www.companyrescue.co.uk/company-rescue/guides/voluntary-arrangement-service-cva

They (HMRC) WANT to help rescue viable companies!

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/insmanual/ins10103.htm

"The purpose of VAS is to

...enable HMRC to make a real contribution to the development of the rescue culture to which Government is firmly committed."

I wouldn't place too much reliance on the Company Rescue website. They are a commercial organisation, selling their own services.

It is true, however, that HMRC would prefer a company to survive, purely from the angle of protection of future revenue. However, they do have their own policies on whether they will support CVA's. They are set out somewhere on line, which I posted several 100 pages ago.... I'll find em again. That said, their current policy is not to support football clubs' CVA's.

[blackpoolhibs]

Surely if HMRC give in, and accept this 9p in the pound robbery, it will give out the wrong signals and give carte blanche to every other company/football club to do the same?

This is such a high profile case, i'd have thought they would need to make a point of not settling for less than they were due, just to make an example.

And show anyone else thinking about going down this route, this is what will happen.

[Cropley10]

Sounds to me like the CVA will be agreed should Greene be able to show that they will be able to pay their taxes in future.

So simply do 'walking away' from tens of millions in unpaid taxes, because your newco will, in future, pay its taxes?

So to any business struggling right now simply withhold your PAYE/NIC and do a few pence in the pins deal later?

Is that what you think HMRC will do.

There is NOTHING in the CVA for creditors and it won't be accepted. D&P are taking £5.5m out before Hector gets anywhere near it.

[Hibbyradge]

It is true, however, that HMRC would prefer a company to survive, purely from the angle of protection of future revenue. However, they do have their own policies on whether they will support CVA's. They are set out somewhere on line, which I posted several 100 pages ago.... I'll find em again. That said, their current policy is not to support football clubs' CVA's.

Obvioulsy, I didn't see that post. Sorry.


That said, their current policy is not to support football clubs' CVA's.

Is that a stated policy, or inferred/deduced?

[Barney McGrew]

Is that a stated policy, or inferred/deduced?

IIRC, HMRC have never accepted a CVA from any football club so far.

[PatHead]

Surely if HMRC give in, and accept this 9p in the pound robbery, it will give out the wrong signals and give carte blanche to every other company/football club to do the same?

This is such a high profile case, i'd have thought they would need to make a point of not settling for less than they were due, just to make an example.

And show anyone else thinking about going down this route, this is what will happen.

Also remember there is no guarantee that the CVA will be as high as 9p in the pound. Does this not depend on the winning of the Collyer Bristow case.

On a seperate note someone in the pub last night asked (probably half in jest) if they could just strip parts of Ibrox and let a salvage yard have a field day-all these oak panels, brass fittings, light fittings etc and then sell of the hundreds of trophies won by the "most successful club in the world" to raise funds at auction. Thinking about it that could raise a wad of money. Why wouldn't the administrators/liquidators do that?

[CropleyWasGod]

Obvioulsy, I didn't see that post. Sorry.



Is that a stated policy, or inferred/deduced?

It's been deduced more than stated, I think, but it's become one of those things that has been taken as fact the more it's said. (a bit like Hibs.net:greengrin).

The latest public statement I have seen was in April, in the Port Vale case. http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/Port-Vale-HMRC-set-reject-CVA-deal/story-15804212-detail/story.html

The HMRC statement was... "HMRC has a long-standing policy that we will not support a CVA which seeks to give preference to one class of unsecured creditor over another."

Now, that is because there is the football creditor rule in England, which doesn't apply in Scotland. I am not sure what HMRC did in the other football administrations in Scotland, but one can see the situation where HMRC might just approve this one if all of their conditions are met.

[HFC 0-7]

So simply do 'walking away' from tens of millions in unpaid taxes, because your newco will, in future, pay its taxes?

So to any business struggling right now simply withhold your PAYE/NIC and do a few pence in the pins deal later?

Is that what you think HMRC will do.

There is NOTHING in the CVA for creditors and it won't be accepted. D&P are taking £5.5m out before Hector gets anywhere near it.

So whats the alternative? D&P have already said they will be selling the assetts to Greene at a price less than what is offered in the CVA should the CVA be rejected - that means less money. There has been nothing from anyone on how much they could get from the assetts apart from Greene. If the CVA is rejected I would expect the new co to be set up and assetts shifted quickly leaving a very small pot.

[PatHead]

Notice Rangers have now sent in documents for duall tax case. Call me a cynic but funny how they arrive the day after the SPL meeting.

http://sport.stv.tv/football/104158-spl-receive-overdue-documents-from-rangers-for-dual-contract-investigation/

[WindyMiller]

Andy Goram defending Rangers is akin to Rommel defending the Third Reich.

You do Rommel a great disservice their.

[CropleyWasGod]

As promised, here is the HMRC list of conditions for supporting a CVA.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/helpsheets/vas-factsheet.pdf

There are a few nasties in there that might sink RFC.

[Andy74]

You do Rommel a great disservice their.

He may have disagreed with certain of Hitler's methods but he played a key role in the steamrollering of much of Europe and Africa.

[WindyMiller]

He may have disagreed with certain of Hitler's methods but he played a key role in the steamrollering of much of Europe and Africa.


I would still compare him favourably with Andy Goram.
:cb

[jgl07]

He may have disagreed with certain of Hitler's methods but he played a key role in the steamrollering of much of Europe and Africa.

Rommel was a ardent supporter of Hitler for much of the war. True he did fall out when he considered that that Hitler's blunders were going to cost Germany the war.

The arch-Nazi historian David Irving considered Rommel to be the most-Nazi of all the High Command.

[CropleyWasGod]

Rommel was a ardent supporter of Hitler for much of the war. True he did fall out when he considered that that Hitler's blunders were going to cost Germany the war.

The arch-Nazi historian David Irving considered Rommel to be the most-Nazi of all the High Command.

This thread really does have everything. :not worth

[At The Edge]

Now i'm really lost.....
Rommel is somehow involved in the current Rangers fiasco or have i got my wires crossed....................?


























:greengrin

[Andy74]

Now i'm really lost.....
Rommel is somehow involved in the current Rangers fiasco or have i got my wires crossed....................?


























:greengrin

Once a Hun always a Hun.

Oops, can I be arrested for that these days?

[ancienthibby]

Notice Rangers have now sent in documents for duall tax case. Call me a cynic but funny how they arrive the day after the SPL meeting.

http://sport.stv.tv/football/104158-spl-receive-overdue-documents-from-rangers-for-dual-contract-investigation/

Been on Beeb radio this p.m., but not on the website as yet, that ICT chairman has now joined the band of critics re HunCo taking their appeal to the Court of Session.

Keep going like this and they'll have nae friends at all on the SFA Board.

Also sends out a strong message to Reagan.:cb

[jgl07]

Now i'm really lost.....
Rommel is somehow involved in the current Rangers fiasco or have i got my wires crossed....................?

:greengrin

But his mate Andy Goram is!

[Bostonhibby]

Rommel was a ardent supporter of Hitler for much of the war. True he did fall out when he considered that that Hitler's blunders were going to cost Germany the war.

The arch-Nazi historian David Irving considered Rommel to be the most-Nazi of all the High Command.

:agree: Big boots, troosers tucked into them, Iron Cross, Oak leaf clusters, Silly walk, absolutely no compassion.....in fact the works - he was a Nazi all right otherwise Hitler would never have let him point all those bloody big guns at all those foreigners :wink:

[PeeJay]

Rommel was a ardent supporter of Hitler for much of the war. True he did fall out when he considered that that Hitler's blunders were going to cost Germany the war.

The arch-Nazi historian David Irving considered Rommel to be the most-Nazi of all the High Command.

One has to wonder: would Irving really know about this? After all the guy claims there wasn't a holocaust, so if he can somehow conspire to miss that as an "arch Nazi historian" - how reliable are his views on old Rommel and what he was up to at any given time! :faf:

AFAIK - Irving is no longer considered to be a historian (if he ever was) - this actually goes quite well with this thread about a football club which I no longer consider to be a football club..

[StevieC]

Also remember there is no guarantee that the CVA will be as high as 9p in the pound. Does this not depend on the winning of the Collyer Bristow case.

Exactly. No idea where this 9p in the pound is coming from. I reckon at best it will be 3p in the pound and more likely to be around 1p (based on the BTC ruling going against Rangers).

[CropleyWasGod]

Exactly. No idea where this 9p in the pound is coming from. I reckon at best it will be 3p in the pound and more likely to be around 1p (based on the BTC ruling going against Rangers).

BOOOOOO.... just beat it with your technical stuff. Let's get back to the Rommel of the Huns stories...

[son of haggart]

One has to wonder: would Irving really know about this? After all the guy claims there wasn't a holocaust, so if he can somehow conspire to miss that as an "arch Nazi historian" - how reliable are his views on old Rommel and what he was up to at any given time! :faf:

AFAIK - Irving is no longer considered to be a historian (if he ever was) - this actually goes quite well with this thread about a football club which I no longer consider to be a football club..




This would be the Rommell who urged Hitler to end the war and told Speidel (re Hitler) "I have given him his last chance. If he does not take it we will act" and committed suicide to avoid being tried and executed for high treason against the Nazi state?

Rommell would have done the right thing re the Huns:wink:

[PeeJay]

This would be the Rommell who urged Hitler to end the war and told Speidel (re Hitler) "I have given him his last chance. If he does not take it we will act" and committed suicide to avoid being tried and executed for high treason against the Nazi state?

Rommell would have done the right thing re the Huns:wink:

Sure - there are lots of questions/doubts regarding old Rommel and his Nazi allegiance - or his participation in the plot against H - but the idiot Irving is a wrong reference to pull out of the hat... IMO he is as competent as the clowns in the SFA/SPL or the administrators ...

[Bostonhibby]

This would be the Rommell who urged Hitler to end the war and told Speidel (re Hitler) "I have given him his last chance. If he does not take it we will act" and committed suicide to avoid being tried and executed for high treason against the Nazi state?

Rommell would have done the right thing re the Huns:wink:

:agree: He certainly would have - nae problem clearing the site for Tesco.

[Cropley10]

So whats the alternative? D&P have already said they will be selling the assetts to Greene at a price less than what is offered in the CVA should the CVA be rejected - that means less money. There has been nothing from anyone on how much they could get from the assetts apart from Greene. If the CVA is rejected I would expect the new co to be set up and assetts shifted quickly leaving a very small pot.

No - D&P have a one way agreement, Green has to buy but D&P must act in the best interests of creditors, so do not have to sell to him. They may not even be the liquidator, once the CVA fails.

[joe breezy]

That Doncaster isn't fir and proper to run the SPL...his latest gaff / quote, from BBC Twitter

Alasdair Lamont
@BBCAlLamont
BBC Scotland sport reporter. This is an official @BBCSport account.
· http://bbc.in/18URB

Neil Doncaster, asked whether the SPL should have a fit and proper person test to look at potential owners of clubs, says it's difficult to come up with such a test that's fit for purpose. To illustrate his point he offers the following quote....

"Gandhi I think may have had a criminal record and ultimately you could say he'd be a fit and proper person to run a Premier League club in Scotland, but he might be forbidden by such a test."

[sadtom]

Over 10,000 posts and 334 pages and they are still wriggling in their death throws!!! They are taking longer to die than Alec Guiness in bridge on the river kwai!!! (C'mon Sally time to collapse on that plunger) And still not a peep fae 'blue is the colour' (as far as i can see)
Is this thread a Hibs.net record? If not what is?

[joe breezy]

That Doncaster isn't fir and proper to run the SPL...his latest gaff / quote, from BBC Twitter

Alasdair Lamont
@BBCAlLamont
BBC Scotland sport reporter. This is an official @BBCSport account.
· http://bbc.in/18URB

Neil Doncaster, asked whether the SPL should have a fit and proper person test to look at potential owners of clubs, says it's difficult to come up with such a test that's fit for purpose. To illustrate his point he offers the following quote....

"Gandhi I think may have had a criminal record and ultimately you could say he'd be a fit and proper person to run a Premier League club in Scotland, but he might be forbidden by such a test."


http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g315/GBOGLE10/GandhiEBT.jpg

[Lucius Apuleius]

Well I think it is an absolute disgrace that along comes a jambo and steals the 10,000 th post on this thread. I have been watching it all day to grab that milestone! Bloody typical, they will steal anything from us. :greengrin

[Bostonhibby]

[QUOTE=At The Edge;3250980]Now i'm really lost.....
Rommel is somehow involved in the current Rangers fiasco or have i got my wires crossed....................?

:agree: Do keep up, he was the under bidder to Whyte but Murray wouldnae sell to him as he wasn't enough of a Nazi for the supporters.

[ancienthibby]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18287971

[joe breezy]

Inverness will be next on Rangers boycott list, although they may be better thinking about to future trips to Elgin...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18286578

Inverness CT chairman slams Rangers over civil court action

Inverness Caledonian Thistle chairman Kenny Cameron has added his voice to that of his St Mirren counterpart Stewart Gilmour in criticising Rangers for going to the Court of Session.
Rangers have successfully challenged a Scottish Football Association tribunal decision to impose a year-long ban on signing players aged 18 and over.
Football rules prohibit clubs going to civil courts over football decisions.
"This is an extremely disappointing situation," said Cameron.
"The Court for Arbitration in Sport was the correct route for Rangers to take, just as we successfully did in the Marius Niculae dispute.
"Taking sporting matters to the Court of Session was a serious mistake.


Scottish football could face an international ban from Fifa over Rangers' challenge to the SFA's transfer ban on the club
"The potential repercussions are something we certainly don't need at what is already a difficult time for Scottish football."
A Fifa statute states that "recourse to ordinary courts of law is prohibited unless specifically provided for in the Fifa regulations".
Caley Thistle went to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland and won their case against the Romanian striker Niculae, who had been demanding £130,000 in compensation from the club over his £400,000 transfer fee to Dinamo Bucharest in August 2008.

At Rangers' appeal, Lord Glennie stated that the decision to uphold a transfer embargo on Rangers was beyond the powers of the SFA appeal tribunal, headed by his fellow Court of Session judge Lord Carloway.
Lord Glennie proposed that the matter should be returned to the SFA appeal stage, although the SFA has 21 days to appeal.
The punishments available to the SFA tribunal are a fine, expulsion from football, a ban on participation in the Scottish Cup and termination or suspension of the club's membership of the association.


Rangers had been handed the transfer ban and a £100,000 fine by the SFA tribunal for bringing the game into disrepute since Craig Whyte's takeover in May 2011.
They were also given another £60,000 in fines for contravening other rules.

Speaking after the Scottish Premier League's meeting at Hampden on Wednesday, Gilmour said: "The law is an ass. I think that sums it up.
"What's a court getting involved in football for? The decision had been made.
"Are we going to take every single sending-off to court? Is that what we are going to end up with?
"Sport should stay within sport."

And former SFA president John McBeth told BBC Scotland that Rangers had "got away lightly with their transfer embargo", a sanction that the Rangers manager Ally McCoist warned could "kill" the club.

[CropleyWasGod]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18287971

Wouldn't say so. The penalty was meaningless, in that it made no difference to the final League places. In effect, it wasn't a penalty at all.

[joe breezy]

https://twitter.com/#!/search/realtime/DONCASTERGHANDIQUOTES

[SurferRosa]

Inverness will be next on Rangers boycott list, although they may be better thinking about to future trips to Elgin...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18286578

Inverness CT chairman slams Rangers over civil court action

Inverness Caledonian Thistle chairman Kenny Cameron has added his voice to that of his St Mirren counterpart Stewart Gilmour in criticising Rangers for going to the Court of Session.
Rangers have successfully challenged a Scottish Football Association tribunal decision to impose a year-long ban on signing players aged 18 and over.
Football rules prohibit clubs going to civil courts over football decisions.
"This is an extremely disappointing situation," said Cameron.
"The Court for Arbitration in Sport was the correct route for Rangers to take, just as we successfully did in the Marius Niculae dispute.
"Taking sporting matters to the Court of Session was a serious mistake.


Scottish football could face an international ban from Fifa over Rangers' challenge to the SFA's transfer ban on the club
"The potential repercussions are something we certainly don't need at what is already a difficult time for Scottish football."
A Fifa statute states that "recourse to ordinary courts of law is prohibited unless specifically provided for in the Fifa regulations".
Caley Thistle went to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland and won their case against the Romanian striker Niculae, who had been demanding £130,000 in compensation from the club over his £400,000 transfer fee to Dinamo Bucharest in August 2008.


Hmm...so despite Rangers claiming they had no route within the SFAs rules to take their case to the CAS......Inverness seem to have been able to get there.

Why did the Huns not do the same. This should be cited by the SFA....Inverness were able to do it, why didn`t you?

Case closed....Kick `em out.

[Kyle A]

This was from follow follow and posted on pie and bovril. First hun post I have seen with proper grammer.


Dear all non-Bears,
It has come to our attention that you are upset that our fight with the SFA may lead to Scotland and Scottish teams being prevented from playing in International or European matches.
We would just like to offer our sincerest, most heartfelt declaration of how sorry we are
No, not about it happening; about the fact that we have somehow managed to convey the wholly inaccurate impression that we give a **** what happens to your paedophile club/pishy wee provincial side or national team.This is entirely our fault, and we promise to ensure there is no repeat of such behaviour. With that in mind, please take this as the completely definitive, unequivocal statement it is meant as. We couldn't give the first pull of a toss about you, never have and never will

Go **** yourself,

The Rangers Support

[joe breezy]

This was from follow follow and posted on pie and bovril. First hun post I have seen with proper grammer.


Dear all non-Bears,
It has come to our attention that you are upset that our fight with the SFA may lead to Scotland and Scottish teams being prevented from playing in International or European matches.
We would just like to offer our sincerest, most heartfelt declaration of how sorry we are
No, not about it happening; about the fact that we have somehow managed to convey the wholly inaccurate impression that we give a **** what happens to your paedophile club/pishy wee provincial side or national team.This is entirely our fault, and we promise to ensure there is no repeat of such behaviour. With that in mind, please take this as the completely definitive, unequivocal statement it is meant as. We couldn't give the first pull of a toss about you, never have and never will

Go **** yourself,

The Rangers Support

Aren't they cute...

:aok:

[Cropley10]

This was from follow follow and posted on pie and bovril. First hun post I have seen with proper grammer.


Dear all non-Bears,
It has come to our attention that you are upset that our fight with the SFA may lead to Scotland and Scottish teams being prevented from playing in International or European matches.
We would just like to offer our sincerest, most heartfelt declaration of how sorry we are
No, not about it happening; about the fact that we have somehow managed to convey the wholly inaccurate impression that we give a **** what happens to your paedophile club/pishy wee provincial side or national team.This is entirely our fault, and we promise to ensure there is no repeat of such behaviour. With that in mind, please take this as the completely definitive, unequivocal statement it is meant as. We couldn't give the first pull of a toss about you, never have and never will

Go **** yourself,

The Rangers Support

It doesn't even make sense.

They're sorry for giving the impression they're sorry, even though nobody is under the faintest illusion that we think they are sorry.

Equally bizarre and sad.

[ancienthibby]

This was from follow follow and posted on pie and bovril. First hun post I have seen with proper grammer.


Dear all non-Bears,
It has come to our attention that you are upset that our fight with the SFA may lead to Scotland and Scottish teams being prevented from playing in International or European matches.
We would just like to offer our sincerest, most heartfelt declaration of how sorry we are
No, not about it happening; about the fact that we have somehow managed to convey the wholly inaccurate impression that we give a **** what happens to your paedophile club/pishy wee provincial side or national team.This is entirely our fault, and we promise to ensure there is no repeat of such behaviour. With that in mind, please take this as the completely definitive, unequivocal statement it is meant as. We couldn't give the first pull of a toss about you, never have and never will

Go **** yourself,

The Rangers Support

Sorry to spoil your party - but it's grammar!!:greengrin

[HibeeMG]

As days seem to run into each other in this saga, I'm confused as to what is happening right now.

Is there not supposed to be a meeting (carried over from yesterday) to decide what should happen regarding the 'Gers Court of Session appeal?

[joe breezy]

another Hun....save yourself from watching Newsnight...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18284888


poor Rangers, how unpleasant this administration process is...

[Kyle A]

Sorry to spoil your party - but it's grammar!!:greengrin

:embarrass

[CropleyWasGod]

As days seem to run into each other in this saga, I'm confused as to what is happening right now.

Is there not supposed to be a meeting (carried over from yesterday) to decide what should happen regarding the 'Gers Court of Session appeal?

No :greengrin

Yesterday was a meeting of the SPL. The clubs in the morning, the Board in the afternoon. Some of the business of the clubs was carried forward to the AGM... namely, the vote on changing the voting structure. The Board meeting was discussing the double-contracts issue, but that was inconclusive, I believe.

The Court of Session matter is for the SFA to decide.

Confused yet?

[Kyle A]

another Hun....save yourself from watching Newsnight...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18284888


poor Rangers, how unpleasant this administration process is...



His fringe is too distracting.

[joe breezy]

His fringe is too distracting.

http://www.darrenstraight.com/blog/images/2007/11/desperate_dan.jpg

[down-the-slope]

:tin hat: I actually think N D's interview - some of which is on beeb - is pretty decent and I find not that much to disagree with (full interview on Newsnight Scotland at 11pm)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18287971

Read the text not the headline ....which is usual hacks posing a question and then trying to make it the focus when its not

[down-the-slope]

No :greengrin

Yesterday was a meeting of the SPL. The clubs in the morning, the Board in the afternoon. Some of the business of the clubs was carried forward to the AGM... namely, the vote on changing the voting structure. The Board meeting was discussing the double-contracts issue, but that was inconclusive, I believe.

The Court of Session matter is for the SFA to decide.

Confused yet?

CWG - although not often wrong....you are :greengrin

SFA were having an emergency meeting today to discuss response to CoS action

[HibeeMG]

No :greengrin

Yesterday was a meeting of the SPL. The clubs in the morning, the Board in the afternoon. Some of the business of the clubs was carried forward to the AGM... namely, the vote on changing the voting structure. The Board meeting was discussing the double-contracts issue, but that was inconclusive, I believe.

The Court of Session matter is for the SFA to decide.

Confused yet?


CWG - although not often wrong....you are :greengrin

SFA were having an emergency meeting today to discuss response to CoS action



Thanks DTS.

Just stick to the finance stuff CWG. We'll keep the diaries straight! :greengrin



So, there may be some developments today then?

[Kyle A]

[QUOTE=joe breezy;3251095]another Hun....save yourself from watching Newsnight...



I hope you're not implying I am a hun. Quite frankly the only thing worse than being called a hun is being called a pedo!

[joe breezy]

[QUOTE=joe breezy;3251095]another Hun....save yourself from watching Newsnight...



I hope you're not implying I am a hun. Quite frankly the only thing worse than being called a hun is being called a pedo!

My post was made before you posted. Are you suggesting that I would predict you would make a comment on Doncaster's hair and was accusing you of being a hun in advance.

If I could predict the future I'd be a rich man

[Kyle A]

[QUOTE=Kyle A;3251117]

My post was made before you posted. Are you suggesting that I would predict you would make a comment on Doncaster's hair and was accusing you of being a hun in advance.

If I could predict the future I'd be a rich man

The gun was jumped. You must understand being called a hun can be a touchy subject.

[HFC 0-7]

No - D&P have a one way agreement, Green has to buy but D&P must act in the best interests of creditors, so do not have to sell to him. They may not even be the liquidator, once the CVA fails.

D&p can sell to greene who can go the new co route buying the assets for less than the cva and leave the old co with the bad debts. Basically the bill miller route.

[lapsedhibee]

:tin hat: I actually think N D's interview - some of which is on beeb - is pretty decent and I find not that much to disagree with

After what seems like months non-stop spouting the Hun Apologist line, he appears to have finally seen at least part of the opposing argument. Better late than never, but it remains the case that his overall performance has been abysmal. Has brought the SPL into disrepute by his 'leadership'.

[lapsedhibee]

The gun was jumped. You must understand being called a hun can be a touchy subject.

You're asking for it a bit though, choosing a favourite cheating Hun's name as your username. :agree:

[joe breezy]

[QUOTE=joe breezy;3251124]

The gun was jumped. You must understand being called a hun can be a touchy subject.

No probs and I just looked back and saw you quoted the comment by the hun...apologies for any confusion, my reference was just to Doncaster...

who isn't actually that bad in that interview overall...

[HibeeMG]

Some movement from today's emergency meeting?

Alasdair Lamont ‏@BBCAlLamont (https://twitter.com/#!/BBCAlLamont)
SFA chief exec Stewart Regan says they'll abide by Lord Glennie ruling and refer Rangers sanction back to Appellate Tribunal




I'm not sure where this leaves the whole situation. FIFA might not be happy. The new Tribunal ruling can either go too severe or too lenient as far as I'm concerned.

[Kyle A]

You're asking for it a bit though, choosing a favourite cheating Hun's name as your username. :agree:

My ma chose that. Back in the 80's before lanky laff was thought of.

[joe breezy]

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2986&newsID=9975&newsCategoryID=1

Stewart Regan, Scottish FA Chief Executive:


"In light of Tuesday’s decision by Lord Glennie at the Court of Session, it is necessary to clarify the position of the Scottish FA in relation to the disciplinary sanctions imposed on Rangers FC.
"Football must always operate within the law of the land. None the less, it is regrettable that a member club has sought recourse for a football disciplinary matter through increasingly costly civil court action.
"The right of appeal is now open to the Scottish FA through the Court of Session. However, by so doing, the very principles on which the Scottish FA - and, for that matter, UEFA and FIFA – are founded, namely football disciplinary matters being dealt with within its own jurisdiction, would be fundamentally compromised.

"Therefore, it is our intention to accede to Lord Glennie’s request and refer the matter back to the Appellate Tribunal, which will consider the remaining sanctions open to it. Details of a new hearing date will be confirmed in early course.

"The Scottish FA is bound – as are all other decision-making bodies in this country – by the Supervisory Jurisdiction of the court under Scots Law. The Scottish FA’s Senior Counsel represented to the Court of Session that it had no jurisdiction with reference to Article 5.1(b) and (c) of the Scottish FA’s Articles and Articles 4(2), 62(1), 63(1), 63(2) and 64(2) of the FIFA Statutes. This representation was rejected by Lord Glennie, who considered that the provisions of the FIFA statutes and the provisions of the Scottish FA Articles did not oust the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts to deal with questions of the powers open to the tribunal.

"It is important to reiterate that the additional sanction of a registration embargo was imposed by an independent Judicial Panel chaired by a leading QC, Gary Allan, and upheld by an Appellate Tribunal chaired by a Supreme Court Judge, Lord Carloway.
"That in itself vindicates the robustness of the Judicial Panel Protocol, which has been questioned in hackneyed comment in certain quarters this week. It should be noted that two vastly experienced Supreme Court Judges, Lord Carloway and Lord Glennie, arrived at diametrically opposed viewpoints on the same issue.

"With our Annual General Meeting taking place on Wednesday, June 6, it will be appropriate to remind member clubs that by very dint of their membership of the Scottish FA, they accept and abide by the Articles of Association."

[CropleyWasGod]

CWG - although not often wrong....you are :greengrin

SFA were having an emergency meeting today to discuss response to CoS action

What do I know ? I get all my info from Hibs.net!

no smilies on mobile...insert Homer

[snooky]

This was from follow follow and posted on pie and bovril. First hun post I have seen with proper grammer.


Dear all non-Bears,
It has come to our attention that you are upset that our fight with the SFA may lead to Scotland and Scottish teams being prevented from playing in International or European matches.
We would just like to offer our sincerest, most heartfelt declaration of how sorry we are
No, not about it happening; about the fact that we have somehow managed to convey the wholly inaccurate impression that we give a **** what happens to your paedophile club/pishy wee provincial side or national team.This is entirely our fault, and we promise to ensure there is no repeat of such behaviour. With that in mind, please take this as the completely definitive, unequivocal statement it is meant as. We couldn't give the first pull of a toss about you, never have and never will

Go **** yourself,

The Rangers Support

Now there's a nice wee hand-out sheet for the other SPL members when it comes to 'voting' time. :greengrin

[Hibs Class]

Some movement from today's emergency meeting?

Alasdair Lamont ‏@BBCAlLamont (https://twitter.com/#!/BBCAlLamont)
SFA chief exec Stewart Regan says they'll abide by Lord Glennie ruling and refer Rangers sanction back to Appellate Tribunal




I'm not sure where this leaves the whole situation. FIFA might not be happy. The new Tribunal ruling can either go too severe or too lenient as far as I'm concerned.

I don't believe any sanction could be too severe. Expulsion may be harsh but it would hardly be undeserved and if that was to be the case they would only have themselves to blame.

[HibeeMG]

I don't believe any sanction could be too severe. Expulsion may be harsh but it would hardly be undeserved and if that was to be the case they would only have themselves to blame.

In hindsight I didn't explain that properly. I also don't think there is a severe enough sanction for them.

I think they will believe there is no middle ground available to them. The fear is that they will then default to the lower punishment.

[Onion]

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2986&newsID=9975&newsCategoryID=1

Stewart Regan, Scottish FA Chief Executive:


"In light of Tuesday’s decision by Lord Glennie at the Court of Session, it is necessary to clarify the position of the Scottish FA in relation to the disciplinary sanctions imposed on Rangers FC.
"Football must always operate within the law of the land. None the less, it is regrettable that a member club has sought recourse for a football disciplinary matter through increasingly costly civil court action.
"The right of appeal is now open to the Scottish FA through the Court of Session. However, by so doing, the very principles on which the Scottish FA - and, for that matter, UEFA and FIFA – are founded, namely football disciplinary matters being dealt with within its own jurisdiction, would be fundamentally compromised.

"Therefore, it is our intention to accede to Lord Glennie’s request and refer the matter back to the Appellate Tribunal, which will consider the remaining sanctions open to it. Details of a new hearing date will be confirmed in early course.

"The Scottish FA is bound – as are all other decision-making bodies in this country – by the Supervisory Jurisdiction of the court under Scots Law. The Scottish FA’s Senior Counsel represented to the Court of Session that it had no jurisdiction with reference to Article 5.1(b) and (c) of the Scottish FA’s Articles and Articles 4(2), 62(1), 63(1), 63(2) and 64(2) of the FIFA Statutes. This representation was rejected by Lord Glennie, who considered that the provisions of the FIFA statutes and the provisions of the Scottish FA Articles did not oust the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts to deal with questions of the powers open to the tribunal.

"It is important to reiterate that the additional sanction of a registration embargo was imposed by an independent Judicial Panel chaired by a leading QC, Gary Allan, and upheld by an Appellate Tribunal chaired by a Supreme Court Judge, Lord Carloway.
"That in itself vindicates the robustness of the Judicial Panel Protocol, which has been questioned in hackneyed comment in certain quarters this week. It should be noted that two vastly experienced Supreme Court Judges, Lord Carloway and Lord Glennie, arrived at diametrically opposed viewpoints on the same issue.

"With our Annual General Meeting taking place on Wednesday, June 6, it will be appropriate to remind member clubs that by very dint of their membership of the Scottish FA, they accept and abide by the Articles of Association."

The Huns taking the SFA to court is just the thrashings of a dying man. They MUST have known the general implications of this action and that it cut across FIFA rules (the Sion case was only last year). I also found it galling that the SFA have to pick up the cost of the Huns court action (i.e. the other clubs in Scotland have to foot the bill). The Huns are basically continuing to spend and play with other people's money. Had they lost the court action, their costs would have come out of what is left for creditors.

IMHO the Admins (D&P) are increasingly playing with fire. If they carry along this course their behaviour will come under legal scrutiny and might well end up having to pay compensation to the creditors for malpractice. D&P are risking their whole future trying to save a condemned and contemptible institution.

[Onion]

After what seems like months non-stop spouting the Hun Apologist line, he appears to have finally seen at least part of the opposing argument. Better late than never, but it remains the case that his overall performance has been abysmal. Has brought the SPL into disrepute by his 'leadership'.

The football authorities, politicians and media are all Hun apologists who were all **** scared of upsetting them. However, FIFA/UEFA have now given them the perfect escape hatch out of their predicament. You watch over the next few days as the press, SFA and SPL all start to turn against the Huns, start talking about fair play & sporting integrity as if this has been the main thing all along... The Huns (and Newhuns) days are numbered because FIFA/UEFA have intervened and IMHO the chances of them having to start again in the 3rd div has increased enormously :greengrin

[StevieC]

Some movement from today's emergency meeting?

SFA chief exec Stewart Regan says they'll abide by Lord Glennie ruling and refer Rangers sanction back to Appellate Tribunal


I reckon that Rangers, especially Green and D&P, could now be seriously worried. They have backed the SFA into a corner where the same Appeal Committee (that had said they had "considered" expulsion based on the seriousness) have not only been overuled but also been classed as inept.

I reckon they will be unlikely to fine, and suspension from a cup (they are hardly likely to win anyway) for league misdemeanours seems unsuitable.

That only leaves suspension or expulsion .. both of which will see the immediate liquidation of Rangers and the formation of a NewCo.

[Just Alf]

In hindsight I didn't explain that properly. I also don't think there is a severe enough sanction for them.

I think they will believe there is no middle ground available to them. The fear is that they will then default to the lower punishment.

That's bang on what I was thinking..... I'm desperately hoping it going to go something like.....

1) wag finger, you naughty boys etc = too lenient
2) a wee fine = too lenient
3) a bigger fine = too lenient
4) lets give em an embargo thingy... it's cool they did it to themselves a few seasons ago and it'll look good = oh bugger :confused: can't use that now
5) punt them out the league for a bit = hmm too heavy maybe?.... go back to 4) .. oh wait we cant use that can we? why? and who caused the situation? .... hmmmmm.. so they did... so they've essentially set their own punishment then... sorted.... has to be 5 then
:cb


Reality is probably gonna be 3) :rolleyes:

[Paisley Hibby]

In hindsight I didn't explain that properly. I also don't think there is a severe enough sanction for them.

I think they will believe there is no middle ground available to them. The fear is that they will then default to the lower punishment.

Yes, that's my fear too. Especially as the Independent and then the Appeal Panels have already said that suspension/expulsion would be too severe. They are going to get away with this I'm afraid.

[Paisley Hibby]

I reckon that Rangers, especially Green and D&P, could now be seriously worried. They have backed the SFA into a corner where the same Appeal Committee (that had said they had "considered" expulsion based on the seriousness) have not only been overuled but also been classed as inept.

I reckon they will be unlikely to fine, and suspension from a cup (they are hardly likely to win anyway) for league misdemeanours seems unsuitable.

That only leaves suspension or expulsion .. both of which will see the immediate liquidation of Rangers and the formation of a NewCo.

Then maybe that gives Green what he really wants - a Newco without facing the wrath of the Bears. He can blame the SFA for it.

[StevieC]

Especially as the Independent and then the Appeal Panels have already said that suspension/expulsion would be too severe.

That was before Rangers stuck two fingers up at them, publicly ridiculed them through the courts (making them out to be inept) and then topped it off by making them pay the courts for the "privilege"!

I'm not so sure they'll be thinking it's "too severe" the second time around.

[HibbyRod]

That was before Rangers stuck two fingers up at them, publicly ridiculed them through the courts (making them out to be inept) and then topped it off by making them pay the courts for the "privilege"!

I'm not so sure they'll be thinking it's "too severe" the second time around.


This.

Also, with FIFA/UEFA monitoring things, surely the SFA have to be seen acting decisively with this or face their wrath?

[WindyMiller]

Then maybe that gives Green what he really wants - a Newco without facing the wrath of the Bears. He can blame the SFA for it.


I think if they tried that they wouldn't get enough votes of acceptance from the other clubs.

[StevieC]

Then maybe that gives Green what he really wants - a Newco without facing the wrath of the Bears. He can blame the SFA for it.

He wont get the NewCo, that's if he even sticks around. His bid had conditions and suspension, or expulsion, from the league would not meet those conditions.

D&P will either be immediately removed for the liquidation process or told to sell the assets to an open market. There is no way that they would be allowed to sell Rangers (lock, stock and barrel) for the £5.5m quoted. I think that Kennedy and the Blue Knights would contest the £5.5m sale .. probably through the courts, which seems to be the way of things at the moment.

[Onion]

That's bang on what I was thinking..... I'm desperately hoping it going to go something like.....

1) wag finger, you naughty boys etc = too lenient
2) a wee fine = too lenient
3) a bigger fine = too lenient
4) lets give em an embargo thingy... it's cool they did it to themselves a few seasons ago and it'll look good = oh bugger :confused: can't use that now
5) punt them out the league for a bit = hmm too heavy maybe?.... go back to 4) .. oh wait we cant use that can we? why? and who caused the situation? .... hmmmmm.. so they did... so they've essentially set their own punishment then... sorted.... has to be 5 then
:cb


Reality is probably gonna be 3) :rolleyes:

And how do they explain that to FIFA who are likely looking for a INCREASED punishment for taking this to open court ? Anything less than the original penalty will be seen as a victory for the Huns and send a message to all and sundry that you can take the football authorities to court and end up better off. That's not going to happen - FIFA/UEFA simply can't allow that :greengrin

[down-the-slope]

I reckon that Rangers, especially Green and D&P, could now be seriously worried. They have backed the SFA into a corner where the same Appeal Committee (that had said they had "considered" expulsion based on the seriousness) have not only been overuled but also been classed as inept.

I reckon they will be unlikely to fine, and suspension from a cup (they are hardly likely to win anyway) for league misdemeanours seems unsuitable.

That only leaves suspension or expulsion .. both of which will see the immediate liquidation of Rangers and the formation of a NewCo.

Big differences though - without knowing the fine details of articles it has to be said - Suspension to me means you could return....expulsion surely means you have no league share to 'transfer' to a newCo....:confused:

[jgl07]

Yes, that's my fear too. Especially as the Independent and then the Appeal Panels have already said that suspension/expulsion would be too severe. They are going to get away with this I'm afraid.

There is a simple solution.

The SFA change the transfer ban to a one year exclusion from the SFA Cup.

Then a new charge is raised for taking the SFA to the Courts and suspend them for one year.

This will satisfy the Courts, FIFA, UEFA, and everyone bar the Huns.

The subsequent vacancy in SFL3 will be filled before Rangers are able to organize a team to apply.

They will then be stuck on the outside even after their ban is up.

With no automatic relegation or re-election from the SFL, Rangers would be dependant on a restructuring to get back in.

[Just Alf]

Stewart M. Regan‏@StewartRegan

Some very strange reactions to our press statement tonight. To summarise in bite-sized chunks....

1. Decision to go back to appeal body who will consider remaining sanctions open to them.

2. No appeal will be made to a civil court for a football matter

3. Two Supreme Court Judges had different opinions on the same point

4. The Judicial Process was never questioned, simply which sanction was selected. Judges had different opinions on what was allowed

5. A new hearing will take place at the earliest opportunity

also says.....

Stewart M. Regan‏@StewartRegan

@THE_TBK We are in consultation with FIFA at present.


he's actually giving as good as he's getting and mosy of the guff is coming from Rankgers so their butts are maybe starting to squeak :greengrin

[Just Alf]

And how do they explain that to FIFA who are likely looking for a INCREASED punishment for taking this to open court ? Anything less than the original penalty will be seen as a victory for the Huns and send a message to all and sundry that you can take the football authorities to court and end up better off. That's not going to happen - FIFA/UEFA simply can't allow that :greengrin

Onions normally give me gyp..... you, my very fine Onion have just made me feel a whole lot better! :greengrin

[jgl07]

Big differences though - without knowing the fine details of articles it has to be said - Suspension to me means you could return....expulsion surely means you have no league share to 'transfer' to a newCo....:confused:

That is SPL terminology.

If Rangers are suspended by the SFA they cannot function as a football club. Their place in the SPL will be taken by Dundee. After the ban is up, they will get an SFA licence but will not automatically resume a place in the SPL or for that matter the SFL.

The best league place they might acheive is the South of Scotland League.

[TheEastTerrace]

Watching Donkey Doncaster's interview - now for the last three months, all we've heard about is how Rangers are imperative for the SPL to maximise its commercial potential. Although he refutes to speculate on a league without Rangers, that drum appears to have ceased being banged by Donkey, especially in this interview. There's almost an acceptance of 'we are where we are' and will deal with the outcome when it comes to it. Just get the sense the EBTs and dual contracts may have him clambering back down on the 'we must have Rangers' mantra.

[Paisley Hibby]

That was before Rangers stuck two fingers up at them, publicly ridiculed them through the courts (making them out to be inept) and then topped it off by making them pay the courts for the "privilege"!

I'm not so sure they'll be thinking it's "too severe" the second time around.

If only that was right! From my knowledge of legal processes I would say that the next SFA Appeal Panel can't use Rangers' legal challenge to justify what punishment to give. If they did, that would leave the SFA wide open to another legal challenge. All the Panel can do is go back and look at the original offence. They then have to decide which of the penalties specified in the SFA rule book is the right one. The problem is that the original panel said that suspension/expulsion would be too severe and the appeal panel agreed with that. So they would need to have a VALID justification for changing their mind. Rangers legal challenge does not give them that justification I'm afraid.

Having said all that, I'd hope they CAN come up with a new bomb proof justification for expulsion and get it right up them!!

[Paisley Hibby]

There is a simple solution.

The SFA change the transfer ban to a one year exclusion from the SFA Cup.

Then a new charge is raised for taking the SFA to the Courts and suspend them for one year.

This will satisfy the Courts, FIFA, UEFA, and everyone bar the Huns.

The subsequent vacancy in SFL3 will be filled before Rangers are able to organize a team to apply.

They will then be stuck on the outside even after their ban is up.

With no automatic relegation or re-election from the SFL, Rangers would be dependant on a restructuring to get back in.

That would be sweet :agree:

[bighairyfaeleith]

If only that was right! From my knowledge of legal processes I would say that the next SFA Appeal Panel can't use Rangers' legal challenge to justify what punishment to give. If they did, that would leave the SFA wide open to another legal challenge. All the Panel can do is go back and look at the original offence. They then have to decide which of the penalties specified in the SFA rule book is the right one. The problem is that the original panel said that suspension/expulsion would be too severe and the appeal panel agreed with that. So they would need to have a VALID justification for changing their mind. Rangers legal challenge does not give them that justification I'm afraid.

Having said all that, I'd hope they CAN come up with a new bomb proof justification for expulsion and get it right up them!!

They have, rangers have brought the game into disrepute again by taking the SFA to a civil court, so they have the next charge sitting waiting.

[hibs0666]

If only that was right! From my knowledge of legal processes I would say that the next SFA Appeal Panel can't use Rangers' legal challenge to justify what punishment to give. If they did, that would leave the SFA wide open to another legal challenge. All the Panel can do is go back and look at the original offence. They then have to decide which of the penalties specified in the SFA rule book is the right one. The problem is that the original panel said that suspension/expulsion would be too severe and the appeal panel agreed with that. So they would need to have a VALID justification for changing their mind. Rangers legal challenge does not give them that justification I'm afraid.

Having said all that, I'd hope they CAN come up with a new bomb proof justification for expulsion and get it right up them!!

The judgement also said that the other punishments were too lenient so I think it's back to square 1.

[Paisley Hibby]

They have, rangers have brought the game into disrepute again by taking the SFA to a civil court, so they have the next charge sitting waiting.

I hope so - but we will first have to see Rangers getting off with a lesser punishment for the more serious offences committed under Craig Whyte (which the Panel said were right up there with match fixing).

[MyJo]

If only that was right! From my knowledge of legal processes I would say that the next SFA Appeal Panel can't use Rangers' legal challenge to justify what punishment to give. If they did, that would leave the SFA wide open to another legal challenge. All the Panel can do is go back and look at the original offence. They then have to decide which of the penalties specified in the SFA rule book is the right one. The problem is that the original panel said that suspension/expulsion would be too severe and the appeal panel agreed with that. So they would need to have a VALID justification for changing their mind. Rangers legal challenge does not give them that justification I'm afraid.

Having said all that, I'd hope they CAN come up with a new bomb proof justification for expulsion and get it right up them!!

The transfer embargo was decided on as a halfway house between other options considered "not severe enough" and "severe enough to jeapordise rangers ability to survive as a football club". The charges against the. Have not changed and there is no option of meeting in the middle any more so the appeals panel already decided that the lesser punishment was not severe enough which means by refusing the transfer embargo the next logical step is to apply the penalty that is available to them that is severe enough to fit the crime but carries with it implications for rangers survival, which the original panel considered but pulled back from to actually do rangers a favour.

[Paisley Hibby]

The transfer embargo was decided on as a halfway house between other options considered "not severe enough" and "severe enough to jeapordise rangers ability to survive as a football club". The charges against the. Have not changed and there is no option of meeting in the middle any more so the appeals panel already decided that the lesser punishment was not severe enough which means by refusing the transfer embargo the next logical step is to apply the penalty that is available to them that is severe enough to fit the crime but carries with it implications for rangers survival, which the original panel considered but pulled back from to actually do rangers a favour.

You're right, the lack of a "halfway house" punishment in the rules has caused the problem. However, it will be a difficult argument for the Panel to say that they are going to punish Rangers more harshly than they think is justified because the rules don't allow them to punish appropriately. Taking it to an extreme, it's like saying to a convicted murderer that we think jailing you for life is appropriate but because the rules don't allow us to do that. we will have to hang you instead. So I think they may have to go to one of the lesser punishments instead but I hope I'm wrong.

[EuanH78]

You're right, the lack of a "halfway house" punishment in the rules has caused the problem. However, it will be a difficult argument for the Panel to say that they are going to punish Rangers more harshly than they think is justified because the rules don't allow them to punish appropriately. Taking it to an extreme, it's like saying to a convicted murderer that we think jailing you for life is appropriate but because the rules don't allow us to do that. we will have to hang you instead. So I think they may have to go to one of the lesser punishments instead but I hope I'm wrong.

As far as I read the original decision it was not that the more severe punishments were not justified more that they would excessively inhibit the Huns ability to continue so they created a middle ground, almost doing them a favour. The Huns are just very, very stupid and conceited.

[CropleyWasGod]

You're right, the lack of a "halfway house" punishment in the rules has caused the problem. However, it will be a difficult argument for the Panel to say that they are going to punish Rangers more harshly than they think is justified because the rules don't allow them to punish appropriately. Taking it to an extreme, it's like saying to a convicted murderer that we think jailing you for life is appropriate but because the rules don't allow us to do that. we will have to hang you instead. So I think they may have to go to one of the lesser punishments instead but I hope I'm wrong.

There are now two crimes, though.

The first crime may well get the lesser sentence. But, the second... they would be justified in setting a tougher sentence for a repeat offence.

[Prof. Shaggy]

Rommel was a ardent supporter of Hitler for much of the war. True he did fall out when he considered that that Hitler's blunders were going to cost Germany the war.

The arch-Nazi historian David Irving considered Rommel to be the most-Nazi of all the High Command.

That's only 'cos he's an apologist for Guderian. :agree:

[stantonhibby]

@StewartRegan the Appeal body will have to select a sanction from the identified list without being able to be pragmatic.



so that has to be a fine ( already done) suspension or expulsion ?

[stokesmessiah]

@StewartRegan the Appeal body will have to select a sanction from the identified list without being able to be pragmatic.



so that has to be a fine ( already done) suspension or expulsion ?

:agree:

[Mon Dieu4]

@StewartRegan the Appeal body will have to select a sanction from the identified list without being able to be pragmatic.



so that has to be a fine ( already done) suspension or expulsion ?



Was the fine they got the maximum fine they could have received?

[stokesmessiah]

Thought i would have a wee gander too see what they are saying on the dark side and found this little ditty..."indeed, ****** FIFA. They stole and monopolised football. a shower of ****in corrupt old ***** getting rich with under the table handshakes on the back of the game we all love. Maybe not in my lifetime, but 1 day the govermnets might just take football back. "

So if my memory serves me right they now dont need the SPL, SFA, Scottish Football, UEFA and FIFA. Do they know they are a football club???

[stokesmessiah]

Was the fine they got the maximum fine they could have received?

I have seen £1m being banded about but i am sure when they released their statement on why they had arrived at their decisions it said they had dished out the maximum fine, so in short...I dont know.

[PatHead]

I have seen £1m being banded about but i am sure when they released their statement on why they had arrived at their decisions it said they had dished out the maximum fine, so in short...I dont know.

Not a large fine anyway when you are only paying it at 3p in the £.

[Mon Dieu4]

I have seen £1m being banded about but i am sure when they released their statement on why they had arrived at their decisions it said they had dished out the maximum fine, so in short...I dont know.

That's what i thought as well, here's hoping